Priesthood Superpower

[Exiled]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And what of the cases where it did work?  What of the cases where the priesthood did authoritatively raise someone from the dead?

I'd like to investigate these claims further prior to conceding that anyone was raised from the dead.

[Exiled]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then why put something like that in patriarchal blessing?

I don't know why the patriarch put that in there. There are stories of people being blessed to do all sorts of things that don't happen. In any event, I was pointing out a contradiction in that we are supposed to pray and bless according to God's Will, which will happen regardless, so why go through with the prayer or blessing in the first place if we cannot hope to change God's mind?

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't know why the patriarch put that in there. There are stories of people being blessed to do all sorts of things that don't happen. In any event, I was pointing out a contradiction in that we are supposed to pray and bless according to God's Will, which will happen regardless, so why go through with the prayer or blessing in the first place if we cannot hope to change God's mind?

I understand your point and thank you.  I just couldn't believe that any patriarch would/could make such relative promise.  This man thought he had failed in the gospel of his faith.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I understand your point and thank you.  I just couldn't believe that any patriarch would/could make such relative promise.  This man thought he had failed in the gospel of his faith.

I agree this must have been tramatic when his brother remained dead and the patriarch must have been out of touch when he promised such an incredible promise. They make mistakes.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

I'd like to investigate these claims further prior to conceding that anyone was raised from the dead.

Well I provided a half dozen.  Go for it.

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I provided a half dozen.  Go for it.

It really is your burden ... what do you have?  Let me know and I will respond.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

It really is your burden ... what do you have?  Let me know and I will respond.

Did you miss this post?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70166-priesthood-superpower/?do=findComment&comment=1209794330

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

It really is your burden ... what do you have?  Let me know and I will respond.

I provided a half dozen historical accounts of people being raised by priesthood authority in the restored Church .  How do you suggest more evidence should look?  There isn't any video oddly enough.  Would an additional couple of occurrences make any difference?

In at least a couple of them funerals were announced/planned yet they lived.

A wise man once said that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  There is no evidence that changes skeptical minds for good.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I provided a half dozen historical accounts of people being raised by priesthood authority in the restored Church .  How do you suggest more evidence should look?  There isn't any video oddly enough.  Would an additional couple of occurrences make any difference?

In at least a couple of them funerals were announced/planned yet they lived.

A wise man once said that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.  There is no evidence that changes skeptical minds for good.

My great-grandfather had a similar experience where he left his body during a severe illness and then returned. However, there was no priesthood blessing involved.

Also, a client of mine, non-mormon, recently told me how he apparently died after an operation and was put in a body bag and was sent to the hospital morgue. I guess he really startled the morgue staff when he rose up and unzipped the bag. Again, no priesthood involvement.

I wonder how these stories fit into the priesthood model?  Could your stories simply be coincidences? How many times do you think a priesthood blessing that attempts to raise someone from the dead doesn't work? I have a friend that lost her husband to cancer despite many priesthood blessings and someone in her ward claims his cancer was cured through the priesthood. It seems random.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

My great-grandfather had a similar experience where he left his body during a severe illness and then returned. However, there was no priesthood blessing involved.

Also, a client of mine, non-mormon, recently told me how he apparently died after an operation and was put in a body bag and was sent to the hospital morgue. I guess he really startled the morgue staff when he rose up and unzipped the bag. Again, no priesthood involvement.

I wonder how these stories fit into the priesthood model?  Could your stories simply be coincidences? How many times do you think a priesthood blessing that attempts to raise someone from the dead doesn't work? I have a friend that lost her husband to cancer despite many priesthood blessings and someone in her ward claims his cancer was cured through the priesthood. It seems random.

I'd be lying if I said I could identify the pattern, the cause and effect.
But I think the evidence is there that people who have been pronounced dead, even to the point of funeral arrangements being made, have been called back by those who did it by authority of the priesthood they held.

Why doesn't it always work?  No idea.  Why is there not a fixed input/output response?  Can't say.
But that doesn't change the historical evidence and multiple witnesses that those who have been declared dead were called back to life by those who did it by priesthood administration.
If you want to know why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, that is something you'll have to take to the Lord.  But in the end, sometimes it works.

[Bobbieaware]

On 2/8/2018 at 2:25 PM, 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.

I say how about considering the following possibility? He didn’t live faithfully and therefore lost his opportunity to fulfill the blessing.

Living faithfully is remaining true to the Lord no matter what may come. If he attempted to raise the dead by the power of God but didn’t succeed, he should have said to himself, “there may have been no success this time, but if I continue to remain faithful and true to the Lord In spite of this disappointing setback, eventually I will obtain the kind of mighty living faith that’s needed to be able to raise the dead by the power of God.”  In other words, the first time he made the attempt could have been a test from the Lord to see if he would continue faithful and serve him wholeheartedly, with a firm belief in his promises, even if his first attempt wasn’t successful. By walking away from the Lord and his promises, the young man demonstrated his faith was weak at the time he gave the blessing, faith that surely wasn’t powerful enough to fulfill the wonderful promise given to him.

I’m quite sure there are thousands of others who have blessed the sick without success, yet they were unshaken and remained faithful and true to the Lord. The following disciples of the Lord remained faithful and true despite their initial failure.

18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17)

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I say how about considering the following possibility? He didn’t live faithfully and therefore lost his opportunity to fulfill the blessing.

Living faithfully is remaining true to the Lord no matter what may come. If he attempted to raise the dead by the power of God but didn’t succeed, he should have said to himself, “there may have been no success this time, but if I continue to remain faithful and true to the Lord In spite of this disappointing setback, eventually I will obtain the kind of mighty living faith that’s needed to be able to raise the dead by the power of God.”  In other words, the first time he made the attempt could have been a test from the Lord to see if he would continue faithful and serve him wholeheartedly, with a firm belief in his promises, even if his first attempt wasn’t successful. By walking away from the Lord and his promises, the young man demonstrated his faith was weak at the time he gave the blessing, faith that surely wasn’t powerful enough to fulfill the wonderful promise given to him.

I’m quite sure there are thousands of others who have blessed the sick without success, yet they were unshaken and remained faithful and true to the Lord. The following disciples of the Lord remained faithful and true despite their initial failure.

18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17)

 

He felt exactly as you explained.  As a faithful man, he felt he had failed..not just to himself..but to his mother.  Yeah..that works...maybe he will try again someday.

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He felt exactly as you explained.  As a faithful man, he felt he had failed..not just to himself..but to his mother.  Yeah..that works...maybe he will try again someday.

It’s not unheard of for the Lord to test his.children by allowing us to be in situations where the most logical thing to do is to stop believing, to test our faith to see if we, like Job, will continue to believe in spite of the strongest temptations to stop believing.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

It’s not unheard of for the Lord to test his.children by allowing us to be in situations where the most logical thing to do is to stop believing, to test our faith to see if we, like Job, will continue to believe in spite of the strongest temptations to stop believing.

What is really unheard of is a Patriarch that would say such a thing.  This man lived his life to be able to do this.  What happens is a cruelty that I don't think God is capable of.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

What is really unheard of is a Patriarch that would say such a thing.  This man lived his life to be able to do this.  What happens is a cruelty that I don't think God is capable of.

Oh but you’re wrong. God is capable of doing the very “cruel” thing you say he is incapable of doing. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the eternal God, Jesus Christ. made the exact same promised to his followers. 

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD,, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matthew 10’

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Oh but you’re wrong. God is capable of doing the very “cruel” thing you say he is incapable of doing. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the eternal God, Jesus Christ. made the exact same promised to his followers. 

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, RAISE THE DEAD,, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. (Matthew 10’

Freely give.  What do you think this man was living his good life for??  The Kingdom of heaven is at hand...and to whose hand is it being given if not the very faithful.  The cruelty of your God is not mine.

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Freely give.  What do you think this man was living his good life for??  The Kingdom of heaven is at hand...and to whose hand is it being given if not the very faithful.  The cruelty of your God is not mine.

Was it not your point that the Lord would never be so cruel as to promise mere mortals they will be able to raise the dead? Yet in the verse I quoted he did make that very promise. Was Christ being cruel when he promised his mortal followers they would have power to raise the dead?

[Exiled]

On 2/9/2018 at 9:30 AM, JLHPROF said:

I'd be lying if I said I could identify the pattern, the cause and effect.
But I think the evidence is there that people who have been pronounced dead, even to the point of funeral arrangements being made, have been called back by those who did it by authority of the priesthood they held.

Why doesn't it always work?  No idea.  Why is there not a fixed input/output response?  Can't say.
But that doesn't change the historical evidence and multiple witnesses that those who have been declared dead were called back to life by those who did it by priesthood administration.
If you want to know why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, that is something you'll have to take to the Lord.  But in the end, sometimes it works.

Hey is Josh Khinder "Mittens" over at the other board?

[Jeanne]

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Was it not your point that the Lord would never be so cruel as to promise mere mortals they will be able to raise the dead? Yet in the verse I quoted he did make that very promise. Was Christ being cruel when he promised his mortal followers they would have power to raise the dead?

Actually, I don't believe in this point that God or Christ is cruel.  It is the patriarch and his misplaced promise to a faithful young man.  I guess he could still raise the dead if the scripture says so...but who would ever want to go through that again...think...he lived the life for this promise..and he feels like HE FAILED...what would it be that he was supposed to learn from this experience??

[Eek!]

Hello Hope,

Sorry it's been so long.   I run a one-man manufacturing business, and so when more hours are called for to avert this or that disaster, I'm the only one available to put them in.  Sometimes that means virtually all of my waking hours for weeks on end.

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, hope_for_things said:

I don't expect that the person we blessed with peace actually receives anything on their end that is directly tied to the words spoken...

I don't believe in my rational logic brain that anything supernatural was happening, but I can tell you I had very strong feelings that I was being blessed from afar and feelings of confidence as a missionary. 

The idea that minds may extend beyond the physical brain need not entail an appeal to the supernatural.   Biologist Rupert Sheldrake has been collecting and analyzing evidence of non-physical connections for years.  One common example would be the movement of a flock of starlings.  The birds move in a coordinated fashion such that they don't bump into one another, and high-speed cameras reveal that their synchronized movements begin faster than their nervous systems could observe and react to the movements of their neighbors.  In other words, they behave as if their minds share, or are connected by, a field. 

Evidence that minds are connected extends to humans as well, as Sheldrake has found in various experiments, some of which are described in this lecture: 

So it seems plausible that no supernatural mechanism is necessary in order for minds to be non-local, for there to be connection without physical proximity, which may (or may not) open up a host of possibilities. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Eek!

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Eek! said:

Hello Hope,

Sorry it's been so long.   I run a one-man manufacturing business, and so when more hours are called for to avert this or that disaster, I'm the only one available to put them in.  Sometimes that means virtually all of my waking hours for weeks on end.

The idea that minds may extend beyond the physical brain need not entail an appeal to the supernatural.   Biologist Rupert Sheldrake has been collecting and analyzing evidence of non-physical connections for years.  One common example would be the movement of a flock of starlings.  The birds move in a coordinated fashion such that they don't bump into one another, and high-speed cameras reveal that their synchronized movements begin faster than their nervous systems could observe and react to the movements of their neighbors.  In other words, they behave as if their minds share, or are connected by, a field. 

Evidence that minds are connected extends to humans as well, as Sheldrake has found in various experiments, some of which are described in this lecture: 

So it seems plausible that no supernatural mechanism is necessary in order for minds to be non-local, for there to be connection without physical proximity, which may (or may not) open up a host of possibilities. 

Thanks for posting this, these kinds of findings are so fascinating, and I really enjoy learning about them.  Absolutely agree that there are natural processes at play that we don't fully comprehend.  Since people have such vivid imaginations they like to exaggerate and imagine the possibilities for processes like this.  There certainly are well defined limits to processes like this.  It is still so cool.  

[Eek!]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting this, these kinds of findings are so fascinating, and I really enjoy learning about them.  Absolutely agree that there are natural processes at play that we don't fully comprehend.  Since people have such vivid imaginations they like to exaggerate and imagine the possibilities for processes like this.  There certainly are well defined limits to processes like this.  It is still so cool.  

I don't think the limits are at all well-defined!   If they are, I certainly don't know what those limit are.  Do you? 

Something Sheldrake hasn't investigated (to the best of my knowledge) is shared dreams.  I first became aware of shared dreams when each of my sons (ages roughly 8 and 10), independently and not in the presence of the other, told me about at dream he'd had the night before.  The other son was in the dream, and it had been quite vivid.  They had not spoken with each other about the dream, and each had no idea the other had had the same dream.   I counted eight elements that were identical in the two dreams, and only one element where it was different - they had walked over a bridge together and one of them looked under the bridge, while the other did not.  That only one of them had looked under the bridge was the only difference in their narratives.   Of course I can't expect someone else to believe that I'm not exaggerating either intentionally or unintentionally, so I mention this only as an anecdote in justification of my own personal opinion that we don't really know enough about this area to say what the limits are.  Imo field-like connections between minds is pretty much unexplored territory.  Sheldrake's scholarly approach is unfortunately limited to phenomena that fairly readily lend themselves to statistical analysis, whereas things like shared dreams and out-of-the-blue intuitions are not really things you can subject to statistical analysis. 

Back in the early 90's this sort of thing interested me and I wanted to explore it using a method that could be subjected to statistical analysis.  I wrote a random number generator program and conducted an experiment, taking care to eliminate the possibility of unintentional cheating.  As I recall I spent the better part of a day figuring out what the experiment would be, and then it took me another day to write the program and authenticate it.  Then the test itself took me one long day to complete, probably about ten hours.  The binomial probability of results equal to or better than mine was less than 4 in 10,000 (31 out of 40 correct, probability of .5 for each trial).  Surprised at this outcome, I spent another half-day double-checking the program to verify that it was indeed random, and it seemed to be - running it many times without any focused attention on my part never gave results that were less likely than 2 out of 100 (27 out of 40 either correct or incorrect - my recollection is that it was 27 incorrect, but the probability would be the same either way).  I won't bore you with the details (unless you ask for them), as this was for my own benefit only, which means that for anyone else it's just an anecdote and totally subject to whatever skepticism comes to mind.  Anyway my own take-away was that focused attention and intention can very significantly improve non-physical connections. 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I believe that focused attention and intention are major elements at play in things like blessings and prayers.  If/when the day comes that we understand such processes, I believe we will see more of what's "natural" and less of what might be called "supernatural" in them.   (Just for the record, the term "focused attention and intention" is a very inadequate descriptor.)

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Eek!

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I don't think the limits are at all well-defined!   If they are, I certainly don't know what those limit are.  Do you? 

No, I wouldn't claim to know the limits, I'm just saying that natural processes all have parameters they work in.  People like to exaggerate possibilities on everything, especially things they don't understand well.  All the superheroes we have in the comic book world have powers based on some kernal of reality and exaggerated to great extent.  Just saying there will be limits around how these processes with the birds work and or other things related to this phenomenon.  

33 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Something Sheldrake hasn't investigated (to the best of my knowledge) is shared dreams.  I first became aware of shared dreams when each of my sons (ages roughly 8 and 10), independently and not in the presence of the other, told me about at dream he'd had the night before.  The other son was in the dream, and it had been quite vivid.  They had not spoken with each other about the dream, and each had no idea the other had had the same dream.   I counted eight elements that were identical in the two dreams, and only one element where it was different - they had walked over a bridge together and one of them looked under the bridge, while the other did not.  That only one of them had looked under the bridge was the only difference in their narratives.   Of course I can't expect someone else to believe that I'm not exaggerating either intentionally or unintentionally, so I mention this only as an anecdote in justification of my own personal opinion that we don't really know enough about this area to say what the limits are.  Imo field-like connections between minds is pretty much unexplored territory.  Sheldrake's scholarly approach is unfortunately limited to phenomena that fairly readily lend themselves to statistical analysis, whereas things like shared dreams and out-of-the-blue intuitions are not really things you can subject to statistical analysis. 

Back in the early 90's this subject interested me and I wanted to explore it using a method that could be subjected to statistical analysis.  I wrote a random number generator program and conducted an experiment, taking care to eliminate the possibility of unintentional cheating.  As I recall I spent the better part of a day figuring out what the experiment would be, and then it took me another day to write the program and authenticate it.  Then the test itself took me one long day to complete, probably about ten hours.  The binomial probability of results equal to or better than mine was less than 4 in 10,000 (31 out of 40 correct, probability of .5 for each trial).  Surprised at this outcome, I spent another half-day double-checking the program to verify that it was indeed random, and it seemed to be - running it many times without any focused attention on my part never gave results that were less likely than 2 out of 100 (27 out of 40 either correct or incorrect - my recollection is that it was 27 incorrect, but the probability would be the same either way).  I won't bore you with the details (unless you ask for them), as this was for my own benefit only, which means that for anyone else it's just an anecdote and totally subject to whatever skepticism comes to mind.  Anyway my own take-away was that focused attention and intention can very significantly improve non-physical connections. 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I believe that focused attention and intention are major elements at play in things like blessings and prayers.  If/when the day comes that we understand such processes, I believe we will see more of what's "natural" and less of what might be called "supernatural" in them.   (Just for the record, the term "focused attention and intention" is a very inadequate descriptor.)

Interesting.  I'm sure there are many things we don't understand about how nature and the universe works.  I also think with respect to your experiment that it would be interesting to have a peer reviewed and replicated study to identify what's taking place and where your logic may need some tweaking.  I wouldn't assume that just because your results were unexpected that your conclusion that focused attention and intention is necessarily the best explanation for what was happening with your experiment.  

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I believe that focused attention and intention are major elements at play in things like blessings and prayers.  If/when the day comes that we understand such processes, I believe we will see more of what's "natural" and less of what might be called "supernatural" in them.   (Just for the record, the term "focused attention and intention" is a very inadequate descriptor.)

We see this in the placebo effect.  Belief (or "focused attention and intention") itself can heal. 

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I wouldn't claim to know the limits, I'm just saying that natural processes all have parameters they work in.  People like to exaggerate possibilities on everything, especially things they don't understand well.  All the superheroes we have in the comic book world have powers based on some kernal of reality and exaggerated to great extent.  Just saying there will be limits around how these processes with the birds work and or other things related to this phenomenon.  .  

Well until we know the limits, we don't know the limits - though of course we can still make reasonable assumptions. 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting.  I'm sure there are many things we don't understand about how nature and the universe works.  I also think with respect to your experiment that it would be interesting to have a peer reviewed and replicated study to identify what's taking place and where your logic may need some tweaking.    

Sheldrake is a scientist who has done a great deal of peer-reviewed research.  But I don't think there is a single skeptic out there who accepts any of that as "proof".  And I am not a trained scientist, so the likelihood of my results meaning anything to anyone are even less. 

One of the interesting characteristics of life on earth is that, we can almost always find sufficient evidence to support whatever we believe or want.   We pick and choose which evidence we give credence to.  I am doing that right now - I am picking and choosing evidence which supports my desire to NOT go to the trouble and expense of generating a study that might be of interest to a peer-reviewed publication. 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

... your logic may need some tweaking.  I wouldn't assume that just because your results were unexpected that your conclusion that focused attention and intention is necessarily the best explanation for what was happening with your experiment.  

Fair enough!

I have no problem with my logic being questioned, but I don't think you have enough information yet to reliably evaluate it.

Here's a description of my test:  I wrote a program that randomly generated a number between 0 and 1, with a 50% probability that the number would be either greater than or less than .5 (and if the number came out to exactly .5, the random number generator would run again).  Each trial consisted of the program generating a random number and telling me when it had done so, and me then guessing whether that random number was greater than or less than exactly .5.  I entered my guess by pressing the appropriate key, the program would then tell me whether my guess was correct or incorrect, and it would keep a running tab on the results of the trials on the screen where I could see it.  I chose in advance to do 40 trials.

My results were 31 out of 40 correct, and the final 18 in a row were all correct, as by then I had learned what to "listen" for.  Run the binomial probability on 18 in a row correct (with each trial having a probability of .50, or 50-50) and it comes to something like 4 out of one million.  My conclusion was that, by the end of the test, I had indeed figured out what to "listen" for. 

Aside from my experiment being incredibly easy to dismiss because it was conducted by a purple cartoon cat, can you tell me where my logic needs tweaking?  

PLEASE remember that the experiment was only for my own education - it was never intended to be proof to anyone else.  So the thing for you to evaluate would be, the logic of ME drawing the above conclusion from it, NOT the logic of anyone else drawing such a conclusion from it (for one thing I am the only one who was there and can be confident that it happened the way I described - for anyone else, there is probably a question of credibility).

Edit:  Here is a logical critique one could make:  "Random number generators" are not really TOTALLY random.  So let's estimate the random number generator's results were biased 1% in one direction or the other (and that's probably a high estimate), and that I had subconsciously picked up on this, and let's assume this raised the probability of my guessing correctly in any given trial to 51% instead of 50%.  This would raise the binomial probability of guessing correctly thirty-one times out of forty from 4 in 10,000 all the way up to 6 in 10,000. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Eek!