Robert F. Smith Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I never made a claim that sexism is a "central feature" in the church, however it is a concerning problem that permeates the culture and runs across all levels of participation. This makes some common sense since roughly 50% of church members are women. Those old fashioned ways have changed somewhat through time, and will likely continue to change a bit, but far more slowly than among society in general. Old Order Amish retain very strict guidelines, while Mennonites have made major changes, but none of that was imposed from outside. The same applies to ultra-orthodox Jews, orthodox Jews, conservative Jews, and reform Jews. Each movement seeks to satisfy its adherents, and freedom of choice is the key. We need to be respectful and tolerant of each group. 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Odd that you're making this strawman argument. What 1984-esk controls have I advocated for. I appreciate diversity in nature and society, I never said otherwise. I think the church needs to change, but did I ever advocate any kind of government enforced change? I was making generic arguments, since you so clearly misunderstand what is being discussed here. You think the LDS Church needs to change, and you say so. That is your right, and you could easily say that of any group which does not act the way you think they should. You are happy with the nature of your values, and so you make value judgments. That is not uncommon on this board. We all have our druthers. But you haven't stepped back and evaluated the consequences of intolerance and disrespect for traditional societies. I feel the same way about the wilderness that I feel about traditional societies. They need to be nurtured and preserved, not bullied. You don't see the value of traditional societies. They must change. Do you really want to level everything into one undifferentiated mass? Is that what Lehi's Law of Opposites conveys? Just a compound in one?! 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Then why can't you see a problem with the sexism in the church? If you have little patience with it in society at large, why do you have patience with it in the LDS church? I always am impatient with the implementation of egalitarian laws for all of civil society, and have done whatever I could to advance voting rights and civil liberties for minorities, just as my forefathers were impatient in opposing slavery: They were staunch abolitionists, and operated the Underground Railroad. Talk is cheap. They acted. I am puzzled that you are unable to distinguish between egalitarian civil liberties in the larger society, and the lack of them in private, traditional institutions. You are out to quash quaint traditions in this or that ethnos, while I want them to be preserved (unless the institution decides to alter course). I want to preserve freedom of choice. You want them to see the error of their ways. 7 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I actually think we've just had a failure to communicate on some level. I'm not against diversity of outcomes, and I'm not in favor of the government controlling the way religious institutions operate on most things. I'm fairly Libertarian when it comes to government intervention. You're arguing against a strawman that I never created. However, you also seem to want to support sexism in the LDS church for some reason, which I don't understand. I do not "support sexism" in any institution, but I am very tolerant of it in some traditional societies, just as I am of many other aspects of such cultures. I believe that it is a sign of sophistication and honor to tolerate and respect the lifeways of other peoples. A matter of mutual respect. We do not need to arrogantly vaunt ourselves and our POVs as more important or more "correct" than others. I spend no time inveighing against same sex marriage, or polygamy, nor against sexism in ultra-orthodox Judaism, the Amish, Mormons, or any other traditional institution, and consider it a sign of ignorance in those who are constantly criticizing and finding fault with such groups. On the other hand, genital mutilation, child marriage, rape culture, human trafficking, honor killing, and other barbaric acts which take away free choice, should be strongly opposed, and we need to go after the perps with hammer & tongs. Failure to differentiate in such matters, and the failure to show mutual respect for others is a major problem in America today, because we are not a homogeneous society, and our laws support socio-political pluralism. Yet, we find daily diatribes against this or that group dominating the news. Why? We need to calm down and observe free choice (perhaps a libertarian concept, since you mentioned the subject).
Avatar4321 Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 I don't think superpowers begin to describe the priesthood of God.
Bobbieaware Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) On 2/1/2018 at 11:39 AM, hope_for_things said: On Sunday I attended a priesthood and temple prep meeting with my 11 yr old son. During the meeting the YM president shared a video segment created from an Elder Holland talk he gave back in the year 2000. Its a story of a little league football practice in Idaho where when one of participants was struck by lightning and was unconscious, a newly ordained 18 yr old Elder gives him a blessing and heals him. Its very heart felt, and you can watch the roughly 3 minute video production the church made from this talk on the second link. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/sanctify-yourselves?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/youth/video/sanctify-yourselves?lang=eng&_r=1 As I sat there listening to the meeting and to this talk I was trying to understand what lesson this is teaching my young son, and what an 11 yr old might take away from this lesson. It immediately made me think of superheros and superpowers. The message this is likely sending to young people is that when you get the priesthood, you get God's superpower to perform miracles. How cool is that! You are so special, that God has given you his super healing power. The secondary message is that you have to be worthy to use this superpower. Superman loses his powers around kryptonite and you too can lose your superpowers if you're unworthy. Lastly if God decides that whatever you used these superpowers on was against his will, then no beuno on those superpowers, because you can't do anything that goes against God's will. Is there some deeper meaning here that I could try and teach my child? What exactly is the point of the priesthood, if its just superpowers to channel God and perform miracles? For me, as someone trying to appreciate the metaphorical meaning in religion and the components of religion that can inspire me to be a better person, I found myself completely lost in trying to articulate in my mind something of metaphorical value about this whole message. Even the construct of the Priesthood just seems completely vacuous to me the more I've thought about this in subsequent days. I'm looking for some help, I do try and find the nuggets of value in the church, but this one really left me wanting and scratching my head. Any suggestions? Getting back to your original question: How can a man can expect to be able to explain anything substantial and edifying to a son about the LDS priesthood when he himself believes virtually nothing about the LDS religion is literally true and when it comes to the rest of Mormonism he pushes back hard on virtually every other point? The Lord warns each one of us that “if ye have not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” This not only means we should not endeavor to teach without the Spirit, but that if we do try to teach the things of God without the Spirit we won’t succeed. Now I’ll switch gears and apply the wonderment about the priesthood’s so-called “superpowers:” The scriptures teach us If a priesthood holder sincerely strives, by the power of the Spirit, to live the kind of clean and holy life God wants him to live, and if he believes in his God with nothing doubting, he will then be able to do the works of God and perform miracles in the name of God. The superpowers of the priesthood — if that’s how one wants irreverently refer to them — are unleashed by personal righteousness and by a firm belief in the existence and holiness of God without doubting. How one who has almost nothing but doubt when it comes to the divine authenticity of the LDS Church can hope to be able to teach a child about a divine principle that can only be realized if one has no doubt seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps the best tact would be to admit that he doesn’t believe but has a sincere hope that his son can. Edited February 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware
Bobbieaware Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Getting back to your original question: How can a man can expect to be able to explain anything substantial and edifying to a son about the LDS priesthood when he himself believes virtually nothing about the LDS religion is literally true and when it comes to the rest of Mormonism he pushes back hard on virtually every other point? The Lord warns each one of us that “if ye have not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” This not only means we should not endeavor to teach without the Spirit, but that if we do try to teach the things of God without the Spirit we won’t succeed. Now I’ll switch gears and address the wonderment and any perplexity felt about the priesthood’s so-called “superpowers:” The scriptures teach us If a priesthood holder sincerely strives by the power of the Spirit to live the kind of clean and holy life God wants him to live, and if he believes in his God with nothing doubting, he will then be able to do the works of God and perform miracles in the name of God. The superpowers of the priesthood — if that’s how one wants irreverently refer to them — are unleashed by personal righteousness and by a firm belief in the existence and holiness of God without doubting. How one who has almost nothing but doubt when it comes to the divine authenticity of the LDS Church can hope to be able to teach a child about a divine principle that can only be realized if one has no doubt seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps the best tact would be to admit that he doesn’t believe but has a sincere hope that his son can. Edited February 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/7/2018 at 8:15 AM, Bobbieaware said: Getting back to your original question: How can a man can expect to be able to explain anything substantial and edifying to a son about the LDS priesthood when he himself believes virtually nothing about the LDS religion is literally true and when it comes to the rest of Mormonism he pushes back hard on virtually every other point? The Lord warns each one of us that “if ye have not the Spirit ye shall not teach.” This not only means we should not endeavor to teach without the Spirit, but that if we do try to teach the things of God without the Spirit we won’t succeed. Now I’ll switch gears and apply the wonderment about the priesthood’s so-called “superpowers:” The scriptures teach us If a priesthood holder sincerely strives, by the power of the Spirit, to live the kind of clean and holy life God wants him to live, and if he believes in his God with nothing doubting, he will then be able to do the works of God and perform miracles in the name of God. The superpowers of the priesthood — if that’s how one wants irreverently refer to them — are unleashed by personal righteousness and by a firm belief in the existence and holiness of God without doubting. How one who has almost nothing but doubt when it comes to the divine authenticity of the LDS Church can hope to be able to teach a child about a divine principle that can only be realized if one has no doubt seems to be an impossible task. Perhaps the best tact would be to admit that he doesn’t believe but has a sincere hope that his son can. I'm not trying to teach my son exactly what he should believe. As a parent that doesn't believe the priesthood holds any special supernatural access to a theistic God, I find myself wanting to articulate a different approach to priesthood than the messages he received in this preview meeting. There are many areas with respect to a more metaphorical approach to religion that I've found valuable approaches to discussions around, but this priesthood topic I'm finding challenging. I've received some ideas in this thread from people, which have been helpful, but I think there is more needed on this concept. The idea of having the spirit, doesn't directly tie to priesthood, but I can see some value in wanting to reflect what God would want us to communicate when we teach, I think that's an important principle. As for the not doubting idea, I haven't found much in the way of metaphorical approaches to the not doubting concept. Personally I find great value in skepticism, so a healthy approach to doubt is an important skill that I try to cultivate as a parent. I wonder if these ideas of nothing doubting might be narrowly applied to specific ideals, like don't doubt that you are loved and of worth. Don't doubt that life is worthy of our earnest efforts and humanity is worthy of redemption. Something along those lines might work for me, but this idea that we shouldn't doubt some statement from a church leader, or we shouldn't doubt that God will save us from some pending calamity, I just don't see value in those forms of nothing doubting. Belief in God as a concept of love, I think that works in my paradigm, but belief in an intervening God is not one I find helpful for me.
Atheist Mormon Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/1/2018 at 10:46 AM, bluebell said: Maybe you could explain why it's a negative for a child to think of the ability to act in the name of God as a superpower. I don't think i'm understanding your post exactly. Maybe this kid should be taught self_reliance first before relying on Priesthood Power.
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 On 2/6/2018 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Those old fashioned ways have changed somewhat through time, and will likely continue to change a bit, but far more slowly than among society in general. Old Order Amish retain very strict guidelines, while Mennonites have made major changes, but none of that was imposed from outside. The same applies to ultra-orthodox Jews, orthodox Jews, conservative Jews, and reform Jews. Each movement seeks to satisfy its adherents, and freedom of choice is the key. We need to be respectful and tolerant of each group. I agree with being respectful and tolerant of different groups in general, there are exceptions and there are ways to handle those exceptions. Would you also agree with being tolerant of groups that choose to change their traditions? Hopefully so. On 2/6/2018 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I was making generic arguments, since you so clearly misunderstand what is being discussed here. You think the LDS Church needs to change, and you say so. That is your right, and you could easily say that of any group which does not act the way you think they should. You are happy with the nature of your values, and so you make value judgments. That is not uncommon on this board. We all have our druthers. But you haven't stepped back and evaluated the consequences of intolerance and disrespect for traditional societies. I feel the same way about the wilderness that I feel about traditional societies. They need to be nurtured and preserved, not bullied. You don't see the value of traditional societies. They must change. Do you really want to level everything into one undifferentiated mass? Is that what Lehi's Law of Opposites conveys? Just a compound in one?! The LDS church is always changing, its less than 200 yrs old and has made dramatic changes over those short years. But less dramatic than the changes I think are important to make around this issue of sexism. What makes you think the things I think should change in the LDS church would strip it of anything essential? Why do you continue to make strawman arguments and accuse me of extremes that I'm not advocating? On 2/6/2018 at 5:27 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I do not "support sexism" in any institution, but I am very tolerant of it in some traditional societies, just as I am of many other aspects of such cultures. I believe that it is a sign of sophistication and honor to tolerate and respect the lifeways of other peoples. A matter of mutual respect. We do not need to arrogantly vaunt ourselves and our POVs as more important or more "correct" than others. I spend no time inveighing against same sex marriage, or polygamy, nor against sexism in ultra-orthodox Judaism, the Amish, Mormons, or any other traditional institution, and consider it a sign of ignorance in those who are constantly criticizing and finding fault with such groups. On the other hand, genital mutilation, child marriage, rape culture, human trafficking, honor killing, and other barbaric acts which take away free choice, should be strongly opposed, and we need to go after the perps with hammer & tongs. Failure to differentiate in such matters, and the failure to show mutual respect for others is a major problem in America today, because we are not a homogeneous society, and our laws support socio-political pluralism. Yet, we find daily diatribes against this or that group dominating the news. Why? We need to calm down and observe free choice (perhaps a libertarian concept, since you mentioned the subject). In practice there isn't much different between your approach and mine. Honestly, I haven't done anything to seriously advocate for women. I have talked to my local leaders about ideas I have, and I have written church headquarters, but you can hardly call my efforts anything very serious. I have problems with the way the church culture is so sexist, but when it really comes down to it, I just tolerate things without saying much. I do find it sad that you're being so critical of my discussion on this subject, continually trying to lump me into your societal bogey man about what's wrong in the world.
JLHPROF Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: As a parent that doesn't believe the priesthood holds any special supernatural access to a theistic God, I find myself wanting to articulate a different approach to priesthood than the messages he received in this preview meeting. But that is the definition of priesthood. You seek to redefine a priesthood that you don't believe exists in the first place? If priesthood isn't authority from God, then it is an earthly creation of a temporal Church, much as one can study and become a pastor or the like. Is that what you believe priesthood in the Church should represent? If so then I can see why you would be in favor of ordaining women. I really am just failing to understand what your goal is here. I think I understand your belief concerning the power of priesthood or lack thereof, but I don't understand why you place any value on the orders of priesthood at all or care how the Church defines it. Priesthood at its most basic level is to stand as a authorized representative of God (or Christ) on earth. If you remove the authorized part you would be forced to revert to an evangelical view. I guess given the challenges you have with the Church, the disbelief in its unique position or authority, I am not sure what benefit you would see in the LDS Church that you wouldn't find in any other Christian Church. Please understand, this is not "an invitation to leave", but I am sincerely asking, take away claims of priesthood authority and the one true Church, and what interest does the LDS Church have for you that couldn't be filled by any other traditional Christian Church?
Exiled Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) On 2/6/2018 at 11:45 PM, Avatar4321 said: I don't think superpowers begin to describe the priesthood of God. How would you define it? Authority to act in the name of God? Incidentally, I remember it being described as superpowers when I was young. Even so, I always wondered what distinguished it from ordinary prayer in the context of priesthood blessings for the sick. As both always depend on God's Will, what's the difference if I have a priesthood blessing or someone says a prayer? Why anoint with oil? Is there something in the oil that makes a difference? It seems prayer does the same job. Edited February 8, 2018 by Exiled 1
JLHPROF Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 Just now, Exiled said: How would you define it? Authority to act in the name of God? Incidentally, I remember it being described as superpowers when I was young. Even so, I always wondered what distinguished it from ordinary prayer in the context of priesthood blessings for the sick. As both always depend on God's Will, what's the difference if I have a priesthood blessing or someone says a prayer? Why annoint with oil? Is there something in the oil that makes a difference? It seems prayer does the same job. So many questions. 1. Authority to act as God's representative is as good a definition as any. 2. It is distinguished from ordinary prayer in that when a blessing is given (that doesn't violate God's plan), that blessing will be honored. A prayer is a request, and operates on the power of faith. A blessing is an authorized representative of God declaring God's will if they have the spirit. Both have power. 3. We anoint something with oil as a representation of dedication. Anointing symbolizes that the person belongs to God. The temple makes that clear. We anoint to identify the blessing recipient as separate from the world, something made sacred. It is the same as the sacramental prayer or the washing and anointing in the temple. To be anointed is to be set apart, separated from the mundane. The same applies for blessings. James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. We do it because it's scriptural. It is a rite of purification and consecration. Sometimes we forget the last part of these verses. And the part faith still plays. Yes, according to scripture, priesthood authority does have the right to pronounce some sins as forgiven.
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 There is an ex-mormon that I am familiar with that receied in his patriarchal blessing that someday...should he live faithful..that he would raise the dead. Ugh. So he diligently lived the gospel..went on his mission to return home and marry his wife in the temple. He was faithful in raising his young family and went above and beyond in his callings...his younger brother died and finally his quest in living and serving was to bear fruit. Prepared and humbled...he went to the mortuary and with the power of the Holy Priesthood asked God in faith to raise his brother. In all of this, his mother waited with patience, confidence and prayerful faith for her son to arrise... What say ye?
JLHPROF Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Jeanne said: There is an ex-mormon that I am familiar with that receied in his patriarchal blessing that someday...should he live faithful..that he would raise the dead. Ugh. So he diligently lived the gospel..went on his mission to return home and marry his wife in the temple. He was faithful in raising his young family and went above and beyond in his callings...his younger brother died and finally his quest in living and serving was to bear fruit. Prepared and humbled...he went to the mortuary and with the power of the Holy Priesthood asked God in faith to raise his brother. In all of this, his mother waited with patience, confidence and prayerful faith for her son to arrise... What say ye? That sometimes God has another plan. And sometimes he doesn't. There are many examples, starting with Jesus and Lazarus.https://scottwoodward.org/miracles_raisingthedead_lorenzosnow.htmlhttp://www.lds.org/manual/the-presidents-of-the-church-teachers-manual/lesson-17-lorenzo-snow-served-god-and-his-fellowmen?lang=eng&query="ella+jensen"+lorenzo+snow In March 1891, during the time Elder Snow was holding a stake conference in Brigham City, a fifteen-year-old girl named Ella Jensen passed away. She had suffered with scarlet fever for over a week. She knew she was going to die and said good-bye to her family. She could hear her parents and others weeping, which troubled her greatly. Her spirit entered the spirit world and remained there several hours. While Elder Snow was speaking in conference, a note was handed to him, telling of Ella’s death. He excused himself from the meeting, saying “it was a call to visit some people who were in deep sorrow” (Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow, p. 413). Taking Elder Rudger Clawson with him, he accompanied Ella’s father to the Jensen home. They went to the bedroom where the girl lay dead. President Snow asked President Clawson to anoint her, and then blessed her himself, using a “‘very extraordinary expression, in a commanding tone of voice: “Come back, Ella, come back. Your work upon the earth is not yet completed.”’ … “‘… More than an hour later, after President Snow administered to her, … she opened her eyes. She looked about the room, and [asked,] “Where is he?” [Her parents asked,] “Who?” “Why, Brother Snow,” she replied, “he called me back”’” (Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow, pp. 413–15). https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/12/15/william-huntington-raised-from-the-dead-by-joseph-smith-in-nauvoo/ He said he had been sick some weeks and kept getting weaker, until he became so helpless that he could not move. Finally he got so low he could not speak, but had perfect consciousness of all that was passing in the room. He saw friends come to the bedside, look at him a moment and commence weeping, then turn away. He further stated that he presently felt easy, and observing his situation found that he was in the upper part of the room near the ceiling, and could see the body he had occupied lying on the bed, with weeping friends, standing around as he had witnessed in many cases where people had died under his own observation. About this time he saw Joseph Smith and two other brethren come into the room. Joseph turned to his wife Emma and asked her to get him a dish of clean water. This she did; and the Prophet with the two brethren accompanying him washed their hands and carefully wiped them. Then they stepped to the bed and laid their hands upon the head of his body, which at that time looked loathsome to him, and as the three stretched out their hands to place them upon the head, he by some means became aware that he must go back into that body, and started to do so. The process of getting in he could not remember; but when Joseph said “amen,” he heard and could see and feel with his body. The feeling for a moment was most excruciating, as though his body was pierced in every part with some sharp instruments. As soon as the brethren had taken their hands from his head he raised up in bed, sitting erect, and in another moment turned his legs off the bed. https://ldsscriptureteachings.org/2016/12/14/heber-j-grants-brother-hyrum-raised-from-the-dead/ Hyrum Grant, my brother, had yellow jaundice which turned to black jaundice. He became as black as my coat. He weighed slightly more than seventy pounds, and was in a most terrible condition. A doctor Van Cott, as I remember it, was waiting on him, and finally announced that my brother was dead. He said, “His pulse has not been beating now for some four or five minutes. He is gone.” Hyrum’s son and son-in-law laid their hands upon his head and prayed to God that his spirit might return, that he might live to fulfill a promise made to him that he should live to preside over the Davis stake of Zion. When they got through praying, my brother opened his eyes, and said, “What is the matter with you folks? You look scared half to death.” He got well and did preside over the Davis stake of Zion. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/06/miracles?lang=eng&query=raise+dead+(name%3A The first is from the Matthew Cowley talk that impressed me so deeply when I was a student at BYU. I quote: “I was called to a home in a little village in New Zealand one day. There the Relief Society sisters were preparing the body of one of our saints. They had placed his body in front of the big house, as they call it, the house where the people come to wail and weep and mourn over the dead, when in rushed the dead man’s brother. He said, ‘Administer to him.’ And the young natives said, ‘Why, you shouldn’t do that; he’s dead.’ ‘You do it!’ … “The younger native got down on his knees and he anointed this man. Then this great old sage got down and blessed him and commanded him to rise. You should have seen the Relief Society sisters scatter. He sat up and said, ‘Send for the elders; I don’t feel very well.’ … We told him he had just been administered to, and he said, ‘Oh, that was it.’ He said, ‘I was dead. I could feel life coming back into me just like a blanket unrolling.’ He outlived the brother that came in and told us to administer to him.” It happened while Elder ‘Iohani Wolfgramm and his wife were serving a mission in their native Tonga, presiding over a branch on an outlying island. Their three-year-old daughter was accidentally run over by a loaded taxi. Four of the occupants of the taxi sorrowfully carried her lifeless body to her parents. “Her head was crushed and her face was terribly disfigured.”20 The sorrowing helpers offered to take the little girl’s body to the hospital so the doctors could repair her severely damaged head and face for the funeral. I now quote the words of her father, Elder Wolfgramm: “I told them I did not want them to take her but that I would ask God what I should do and, if it was possible, to give her life back.”21 The helpers took the little girl’s body into the chapel. Elder Wolfgramm continued: “I asked them to hold her while I gave her a priesthood blessing. By then the curious people of the village were flocking in to see our stricken little daughter. As I was about to proceed with the administration, I felt tongue-tied. Struggling to speak, I got the distinct impression that I should not continue with the ordinance. It was as if a voice were speaking to me saying: ‘This is not the right time, for the place is full of mockers and unbelievers. Wait for a more private moment.’ “My speech returned at that moment and I addressed the group: ‘The Lord has restrained me from blessing this little girl, because there are unbelievers among you who doubt this sacred ordinance. Please help me by leaving so I can bless my child.’”22 The people left without taking offense. The grieving parents carried the little girl to their home, put her body on her own bed, and covered her with a sheet. Three hours passed, and her body began to show the effects of death. The mother pleaded with the father to bless her, but he insisted that he still felt restrained. Finally, the impression came that he should now proceed. I return to his words: “All present in the home at that moment were people with faith in priesthood blessings. The feeling of what I should do and say was so strong within me that I knew Tisina would recover completely after the blessing. Thus, I anointed her head and blessed her in the name of Jesus Christ to be well and normal. I blessed her head and all her wounds to heal perfectly, thanking God for his goodness to me in allowing me to hold his priesthood and bring life back to my daughter. I asked him to open the doors of Paradise, so I could tell her to come back and receive her body again and live. The Lord then spoke to my heart and said, ‘She will return to you tomorrow. You will be reunited then.’”23 The parents spent an anxious night beside the body of the little girl, who appeared to be lifeless. Then, suddenly, the little girl awoke, alive and well. Her father’s account concludes: “I grabbed her and examined her, her head and face. They were perfectly normal. All her wounds were healed; and from that day to this, she has experienced no complications from the accident. Her life was the miraculous gift from Heavenly Father during our missionary labors in Fo’ui.” http://www.ldsliving.com/The-Remarkable-Way-Wilford-Woodruff-Called-His-Wife-Back-from-the-Dead-What-She-Saw/s/85675 December 3rd found my wife very low. I spent the day in taking care of her, and the following day I returned to Eaton to get some things for her. She seemed to be gradually sinking and in the evening her spirit apparently left her body, and she was dead.The sisters gathered around her body, weeping, while I stood looking at her in sorrow. The spirit and power of God began to rest upon me until, for the first time during her sickness, faith filled my soul, although she lay before me as one dead. I had some oil that was consecrated for my anointing while in Kirtland. I took it and consecrated it again before the Lord for anointing the sick. I then bowed down before the Lord and prayed for the life of my companion, and I anointed her body with the oil in the name of the Lord. I laid my hands upon her, and in the name of Jesus Christ I rebuked the power of death and the destroyer, and commanded the same to depart from her, and the spirit of life to enter her body. Her spirit returned to her body, and from that hour she was made whole; and we all felt to praise the name of God, and to trust in Him and to keep His commandments. While this operation was going on with me (as my wife related afterwards) her spirit left her body, and she saw it lying upon the bed, and the sisters weeping. She looked at them and at me, and upon her babe, and, while gazing upon this scene, two personages came into the room carrying a coffin and told her they had come for her body. One of these messengers informed her that she could have her choice: she might go to rest in the spirit world, or, on one condition she could have the privilege of returning to her tabernacle and continuing her labors upon the earth. The condition was, if she felt that she could stand by her husband, and with him pass through all the cares, trials, tribulation and afflictions of life which he would be called to pass through for the gospel’s sake unto the end. When she looked at the situation of her husband and child she said: “Yes, I will do it!” At the moment that decision was made the power of faith rested upon me, and when I administered unto her, her spirit entered her tabernacle, and she saw the messengers carry the coffin out at the door. So what say ye? Edited February 8, 2018 by JLHPROF 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: .................................................... I do find it sad that you're being so critical of my discussion on this subject, continually trying to lump me into your societal bogey man about what's wrong in the world. As we express mutual sadness about each other's failure to get it right in general or about each other, it might be well to reflect on an America in which we should be encouraged to express differing opinions across a broad range. Fortunately we have the right to do so. Most of my opinions constitute a minority view, and always have. I fully expect my POV to be generally ignored in most venues, and that is why most traditional societies are regularly attacked for not conforming to generally accepted and shifting values. I would not want to be a member of some of those traditional societies, since they have ideals and practices which are alien to mine, but as an anthropologist I can admire the nature of those societies, and as a supporter of pluralism, I fervently desire to see great diversity -- even when it may clash with my own value judgments. I don't really expect you to support that attitude, and few people do. Despite progress in many areas since the founding of the USA, strong elements of partisanship and intolerance seem to doggedly hang on. 1
Exiled Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: So many questions. 1. Authority to act as God's representative is as good a definition as any. 2. It is distinguished from ordinary prayer in that when a blessing is given (that doesn't violate God's plan), that blessing will be honored. A prayer is a request, and operates on the power of faith. A blessing is an authorized representative of God declaring God's will if they have the spirit. Both have power. 3. We anoint something with oil as a representation of dedication. Anointing symbolizes that the person belongs to God. The temple makes that clear. We anoint to identify the blessing recipient as separate from the world, something made sacred. It is the same as the sacramental prayer or the washing and anointing in the temple. To be anointed is to be set apart, separated from the mundane. The same applies for blessings. James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. We do it because it's scriptural. It is a rite of purification and consecration. Sometimes we forget the last part of these verses. And the part faith still plays. Yes, according to scripture, priesthood authority does have the right to pronounce some sins as forgiven. Do you believe that a priesthood blessing is more effectual in healing the sick than prayer? If so, what do you base this on? It seems that ensuring that "if it be God's Will" or "doesn't violate God's plan" is inserted to the priesthood blessing or understood that way makes it equivalent to prayer. Both are subject to God's Will and so one seems to be the same as the other. Do you think in an area with sparse priesthood, the sick would have survived if only a blessing had been performed even though the non-priesthood holders were sincerely praying for a healing? Still, the church instructs its members to seek out medical attention. As medicine improves, will priesthood blessings for the sick be eventually done away? Edited February 8, 2018 by Exiled 1
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: But that is the definition of priesthood. You seek to redefine a priesthood that you don't believe exists in the first place? If priesthood isn't authority from God, then it is an earthly creation of a temporal Church, much as one can study and become a pastor or the like. Is that what you believe priesthood in the Church should represent? If so then I can see why you would be in favor of ordaining women. I really am just failing to understand what your goal is here. I think I understand your belief concerning the power of priesthood or lack thereof, but I don't understand why you place any value on the orders of priesthood at all or care how the Church defines it. Priesthood at its most basic level is to stand as a authorized representative of God (or Christ) on earth. If you remove the authorized part you would be forced to revert to an evangelical view. I guess given the challenges you have with the Church, the disbelief in its unique position or authority, I am not sure what benefit you would see in the LDS Church that you wouldn't find in any other Christian Church. Please understand, this is not "an invitation to leave", but I am sincerely asking, take away claims of priesthood authority and the one true Church, and what interest does the LDS Church have for you that couldn't be filled by any other traditional Christian Church? Well, that's the literal believer's definition of priesthood. If you're a literal believer in Noah's flood, then you also look at that differently than I do. What could it represent in a metaphorical sense, that is essentially what I'm asking for in the OP. I don't have all the answers, but some other people have provided some ideas, and I'm still trying to make sense of which ideas may have the most value to me. Yes I'm in favor of ordaining women. And no, I don't see anything quantitatively special about Mormonism compared to other churches, but this is the religion of my tradition so I have a personal attachment to it for multiple reasons. And because I see value in religion, I'm trying to find ways to look at things that I find are pragmatic and don't offend my sensibilities and beliefs. Who knows, in another 50 years maybe my ways of viewing things won't look so strange. This probably sounds really weird to someone more orthodox. How can you possibly try and create your own theology within Mormonism? Well, I see this as very much in line to how the early Mormons thought about things, many of which were very independent thinkers, and they felt like they had a certain amount of freedom to innovate within the Mormon framework.
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 50 minutes ago, Jeanne said: There is an ex-mormon that I am familiar with that receied in his patriarchal blessing that someday...should he live faithful..that he would raise the dead. Ugh. So he diligently lived the gospel..went on his mission to return home and marry his wife in the temple. He was faithful in raising his young family and went above and beyond in his callings...his younger brother died and finally his quest in living and serving was to bear fruit. Prepared and humbled...he went to the mortuary and with the power of the Holy Priesthood asked God in faith to raise his brother. In all of this, his mother waited with patience, confidence and prayerful faith for her son to arrise... What say ye? Yikes, really? Wow... I admire that person for their faith, its a testament to their diligently following of the Mormon message, and that takes a lot of ambition and discipline. I can see myself very much in a person like that, I used to take the literal faith claims very seriously and was very good at keeping the letter of the law and following the correlated program. I think for people like me, personalities that are wired this way, when faith crisis comes, it hits pretty hard. If I'm being honest, this is both a strength and a weakness in Mormonism at the same time. It helps people learn great skills in their youth, skills that can assist them throughout their life. Unfortunately its also is a mirage at the same time. This doesn't help the person progress through natural adult development. It really puts you in a naive bubble, and when there are challenging events, retreating to the correlated program sometimes isn't enough to satisfy. You can only bend so far before you break. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: As we express mutual sadness about each other's failure to get it right in general or about each other, it might be well to reflect on an America in which we should be encouraged to express differing opinions across a broad range. Fortunately we have the right to do so. Most of my opinions constitute a minority view, and always have. I fully expect my POV to be generally ignored in most venues, and that is why most traditional societies are regularly attacked for not conforming to generally accepted and shifting values. I would not want to be a member of some of those traditional societies, since they have ideals and practices which are alien to mine, but as an anthropologist I can admire the nature of those societies, and as a supporter of pluralism, I fervently desire to see great diversity -- even when it may clash with my own value judgments. I don't really expect you to support that attitude, and few people do. Despite progress in many areas since the founding of the USA, strong elements of partisanship and intolerance seem to doggedly hang on. Well said. I think part of our misunderstanding may also be generational. From your comments it sounds like you are pretty progressive for your generation. As a Generation X person, I just may be more progressive than you're comfortable with. I imagine there will be ideas of the younger generations that I too won't be comfortable with.
Exiled Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: There is an ex-mormon that I am familiar with that receied in his patriarchal blessing that someday...should he live faithful..that he would raise the dead. Ugh. So he diligently lived the gospel..went on his mission to return home and marry his wife in the temple. He was faithful in raising his young family and went above and beyond in his callings...his younger brother died and finally his quest in living and serving was to bear fruit. Prepared and humbled...he went to the mortuary and with the power of the Holy Priesthood asked God in faith to raise his brother. In all of this, his mother waited with patience, confidence and prayerful faith for her son to arrise... What say ye? Obviously God didn't want the dead to rise in this case (the go to response when it doesn't work)
Exiled Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 If it is God's Will no matter what, and we should always have the faith to not be healed in order to follow God's Will, why even give a priesthood blessing or pray for that matter? God will go about His work regardless and who are we to desire otherwise? So, aren't priesthood blessings for the sick and prayers for the sick or that ask for something, for that matter, really asking God to change the Will that we should be asking to be fulfilled?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Well said. I think part of our misunderstanding may also be generational. From your comments it sounds like you are pretty progressive for your generation. As a Generation X person, I just may be more progressive than you're comfortable with. I imagine there will be ideas of the younger generations that I too won't be comfortable with. I didn't fit in my generation, and am unlikely to fit anywhere. Ever. In this life. Hopefully, I may fit somewhere in the Celestial Kingdom (I hope God can find an unobtrusive niche for me). That is all that really matters. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I didn't fit in my generation, and am unlikely to fit anywhere. Ever. In this life. Hopefully, I may fit somewhere in the Celestial Kingdom (I hope God can find an unobtrusive niche for me). That is all that really matters. Ha! Well, we definitely are kindred spirits in that sense of not fitting in then. I don't fit well with orthodox Mormonism, or Ex-Mormons either. 1
bluebell Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Maybe this kid should be taught self_reliance first before relying on Priesthood Power. Self reliance is a HUGE topic in the church. It's taught on Sundays and it's taught through intensive courses as well. It's a false dichotomy to imply that you can't teach self reliance and a need to rely on God. 2
hope_for_things Posted February 8, 2018 Author Posted February 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: Self reliance is a HUGE topic in the church. It's taught on Sundays and it's taught through intensive courses as well. It's a false dichotomy to imply that you can't teach self reliance and a need to rely on God. I agree, and personally was raised on the self reliance message and it fits really well for my personality. Its ironic that this vein of thinking is so strong in Mormonism, considering the early Mormon theology roots of consecration and communalism. Its also odd because there isn't isn't much within Christian scripture let alone Mormon scripture that supports this self reliance narrative. It pushes against the grain quite a bit.
JLHPROF Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Exiled said: Obviously God didn't want the dead to rise in this case (the go to response when it doesn't work) And what of the cases where it did work? What of the cases where the priesthood did authoritatively raise someone from the dead?
Jeanne Posted February 8, 2018 Posted February 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Exiled said: If it is God's Will no matter what, and we should always have the faith to not be healed in order to follow God's Will, why even give a priesthood blessing or pray for that matter? God will go about His work regardless and who are we to desire otherwise? So, aren't priesthood blessings for the sick and prayers for the sick or that ask for something, for that matter, really asking God to change the Will that we should be asking to be fulfilled? Then why put something like that in patriarchal blessing?
Recommended Posts