Priesthood blessings and evidence

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was the second hit for me when site searching LDS.org with priesthood power and righteousness.  A number of comments saying personal righteousness is key, imperative, etc., but I think if that is all one focuses on, one ignores the greater context of the Gospel.  Righteousness is imperative in living the Gospel.  Charity is righteousness.  Loving family is righteousness, praying is righteousness.  Most things can be labeled righteousness if done with the intent to serve God or others in love or at least respect if we aren’t yet capable of loving them as we should.

Personal righteousness is this massive, global attribute of countless internal and external behaviors, not some specific limited, concrete behaviour in itself.

RE: the link, I was referring to the "pacific" in relation to the "Atlantic" 

I'd still like to see the whole article.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

RE: the link, I was referring to the "pacific" in relation to the "Atlantic" 

I'd still like to see the whole article.

The link I posted has the whole article.

[InCognitus]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You actually like your wife?

Yes, very much so.  The only odd thing is that when we were first dating, I couldn't start giving her "likes" until after the 25th date (who made up that rule anyway?)

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't know that priesthood is a power that resides in an ordained man.  I think that priesthood is authority.  The authority to act in the name of God and bring about His will.  I'm sure that when it is His will that that includes wielding His power, but I don't think the ordained priesthood holder walks around with it inside of him all the time.

Priesthood power is a gift, even for women. It enables you to become a better person, better than you were before you had it. If priesthood power is a gift, isn't part of you?

Edited March 1, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[AtlanticMike]

24 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Delete

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t tell from this link who the speaker or writer is that is being quoted here. 
 

But I don’t think it matters, because the quote doesn’t prove what you seem to want it to prove, i.e. that “we are taught from birth ... that our ‘personal righteousness’ dictates the strength of the priesthood power we are given.”

Our personal righteousness dictates the power of the blessing being given. Isnt that what Elder Featherstone is saying

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The link I posted has the whole article.

Oh okay -- thankee!

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 2/28/2021 at 11:49 AM, AtlanticMike said:

On 2/28/2021 at 10:30 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

My claim is that even if there's a measurable/provable real impact, it wouldn't make any difference to people.  Critics would still be unpersuaded and critical.)

I doubt that. Real evidence like children miraculously walking out of hospitals on a scale not seen anywhere else would persuade any loving parent, critics also, to search for their closest priesthood holder and beg for a blessing, and probably multiple blessings. Let me ask you, do you think the priesthood is an actual power? A real honest to goodness power that's inside a worthy priesthood holder? 

Yes, I believe the priesthood is an actual power.  I believe I've exercised it.  And I believe I've witnessed a genuine miracle when giving a blessing to someone, although the miracle wasn't what you'd think, and isn't really measurable.  I'm a big fan of statistical analysis, and I get your point.  I honestly don't know what you'd get if you tried measuring the power of a blessing.  How would you make it double blind?  How do you account for the placebo effect?  How do you account for the blessings given for non-measurable things like "the ability to accept God's will in this matter"?

Anyway, for my point, I admire your optimism.  I stopped sharing it a few years into my apologetic brawling with critics.   At one point, I asked this question:

Quote

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM.  Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit.  If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized?

I was surprised by the responses.  After repeating the exercise in two or three different locations over the last two decades and getting similar results, I'm not surprised by them any more.  Old-timers may recognize some of the names here:

Quote

Tchild2: “Problem is, that "tomorrow" never arrives, it exists as a hypothetical fantasy. What if Jesus came down and said that the Catholics had and always had the sole power to effect the ordinances of Christianity, would you then become Catholic, or whatever religion had their fantasy evidences and proofs materialize?
"Tomorrow" is an artifice and construct of fantasy that doesn't exist, and never has with religious claims.”
---
Sleepyhead: “The book of mormon being true doesn't automatically indicate that any of the reorganization chruches are true. Each step has to be looked at logically.”
---
AZNative: “Let me know when they find Moroni's horse wrapped in the Title of Liberty, then we'll talk...”
---
Oceanblue: “OK, BoM is true and Joseph was a fallen prophet. Power went to his head. Something like that. Saul, anyone?”
--
Agnostimorm: "If something like what you describe happenned I would be thrilled to accept such a thing."
--
"If God were a real being and he corresponded to the many things reported about him by Christians, it is likely I would not want anything to do with him."
--
FormerLDS: "Honestly, I don't think it would change my opinion about the LDS organization.  With respect to seeing archaeological evidence, and believing, think about this:
Have you ever seen the a devil cast out of a man? Certainly, that would be very convincing evidence.
Have you ever personally witnessed prophecy? That too would be very convincing evidence.
Have you ever seen wonderful works? Yet more evidence that might convince one to believe.
All of these and more are done in the name of Jesus Christ by those who accepted a false gospel (Matt 7:22).
Therefore, evidence can be very misleading where the truth of the gospel is concerned. How much cyanide kills? Likewise, a gospel that is 99.99% grace and .001% works will send a man's soul to the lake of fire for eternity, regardless the "evidence".
The only gospel that will save is Believe WITHOUT works."
--
Cinepro: "I'm still baptized, but it would certainly change the direction I'm heading."
--
Roman: "Never because your little drama would never happen"
--
Oprichnik (LDS): "It's in the Christian world's best interest that that scenerio not occur. Their agency would evaporate in a heartbeat."
--
JustCurious: "Well anyone who would not would be a fool..."
--
BAMMER: "I've already given my life over to the Lord and been reborn through faith. I confess Him daily. And I would never accept anything or anyone that taught another gospel.
Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Ga 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The BOM teaches that by grace man is saved "after all he can do." This means he works or qualifies himself for God's grace after a lifetime of efforts. This is a damnable lie and lies in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ. So in a nutshell, I wouldn't care if an angel of light came and held plates in front of my face - if they taught another gospel, they are accursed."

 

[AtlanticMike]

38 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyway, for my point, I admire your optimism.  I stopped sharing it a few years into my apologetic brawling with critics.   At one point, I asked this question:

Quote

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say tomorrow, non-mormon archaeologists announce they have found the grave of Lehi, the sword of Laban, the city of Zarahemla, horse and elephant bones, steel swords, breastplates, and evidence of the massive battles talked about in the BoM.  Let's say they unearth additional records that strongly support events described in the BoM - especially Christ's visit.  If all this happened, would you believe Joseph Smith and the BoM are what they claim to be, and would you go to a mormon church and get baptized?

Expand  

I think if nonmormon archaeologists announce what you say, church membership would go from 16,000,000 to 100,000,000 in a matter of a couple of years. As far as the examples you gave of people saying that it never happen, who cares, your not going to convince everyone, some people wouldn't join just out of spite, or the fact that some people cant admit they might be wrong. I gave that up a long time ago, if I'm wrong I'll admit it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[AtlanticMike]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is a reason we do not go around offering Priesthood blessings to everyone in hospitals.

What would that reason be? Honestly, how could offering a blessing to anyone/everyone be a bad thing? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Our personal righteousness dictates the power of the blessing being given. Isnt that what Elder Featherstone is saying

What the quote indicates is that one must be worthy to exercise priesthood power. That’s not in dispute. One who is in the habit of viewing pornography is not worthy to exercise priesthood power. 
 

What this quote does not say is that the efficacy of a priesthood blessing is commensurate with the personal righteousness of the one giving it such that one man who is worthy but has less personal righteousness than another man cannot give as powerful a priesthood blessing as that man, which is what you seemed to be saying you have been “taught since birth.” 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[AtlanticMike]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What the quote indicates is that one must be worthy to exercise priesthood power. That’s not in dispute. One who is in the habit of viewing pornography is not worthy to exercise priesthood power. 
 

What this quote does not say is that the efficacy of a priesthood blessing is commensurate with the personal righteousness of the one giving it such that one man who is worthy but has less personal righteousness than another man cannot give as powerful a priesthood blessing as that man, which is what you seemed to be saying you have been “taught since birth.” 

What I'm saying is even though someone may have been given authority to bless people, there worthiness/righteousness determines if they have priesthood power. What if he's unworthy, is his power diminished?

 

 That's what featherstone is saying. If that priesthood holder was unworthy,he wouldn't of been able to call that youngman back from the dead because his priesthood power would of been weakened because of sin.

Edited March 1, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Priesthood power is a gift, even for women. It enables you to become a better person, better than you were before you had it. If priesthood power is a gift, isn't part of you?

You've confused me, because you were talking about priesthood blessings, which only an ordained man can give, but now you've changed to talking about priesthood power that comes to everyone through the endowment.

I answered your question in regards to priesthood blessings, which women cannot give, even those endowed with priesthood power.

 

[Emily]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

one of the most powerful experiences I had as a full-time missionary involved laying my hands on the head of a recent convert's grandfather with every intention of commanding him to arise and be made whole. Instead, I was 'shown' not only that he was going to die but when.

My husband had a similar experience with his much-beloved grandfather. 

His grandfather's condition after a heart attack was well within the abilities of modern science to heal. He wasn't very old and was otherwise in pretty good shape. So my husband offered a priesthood blessing, fully expecting to give a reassuring message about future health. Instead, his grandfather was told he'd be returned to the care of his family "for a time". My husband was very sad afterwards because he felt that it was going to be a short time, but he didn't say it out loud because, "Grandpa already knew."

His grandfather had another massive attack less than a year later, and passed away.

Then on my side, many years later, my elderly father fell off the roof of a house.  He was a heart patient, on blood thinners at the time, so he experienced massive bleeding in his brain and fell into a coma. In poor physical condition, elderly, brain damaged and unable to breath without pressurized oxygen, the doctors did not expect him to live.

My son gave him a blessing, and we were all expecting words of comfort to a family whose father/grandfather would never wake up. Instead he was told he would have trials, but he would be granted the desire of his heart and would live to see the birth of his great-grandchildren. The wording was a bit vague on which great-grandchildren and how many, but under the circumstances, it was cheeky to predict he would live to see the children currently in-utero much less any future descendants. But my son was given the private understanding that some of the children would be his own - a wonderful reassurance since he and his wife were unable to conceive.

Ten years later, my father has not been in the best health, but he's been alive and mentally aware and able welcome to the family twenty great-grandchildren and counting. With modern infertility treatments, my son now has three children.

You'd be hard pressed to pull meaningful statistics from these two priesthood blessings. In one situation someone died when doctors expected him to live. In the other, someone lived when he was expected to die. Sum zero variance on average positive outcome in a hospital emergency.

I think both blessings can be considered "positive outcomes", since the receivers got the gift that was most important to them at the time. But how would you measure that in a scientific experiment?

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, Emily said:

You'd be hard pressed to pull meaningful statistics from these two priesthood blessings. In one situation someone died when doctors expected him to live. In the other, someone lived when he was expected to die. Sum zero variance on average positive outcome in a hospital emergency.

I think both blessings can be considered "positive outcomes", since the receivers got the gift that was most important to them at the time. But how would you measure that in a scientific experiment?

Precisely. And understanding what you've described above is essential to correctly understanding what is meant by 'power in the priesthood'.

When I was working in America, I had a housemate who had been attracted to the Church because, after 12 years of working as a respiratory therapist in large hospitals in Chicago, he'd sought out the quiet of a small Colorado town and was struck by how differently Latter-day Saint families approached death. It was literally unlike anything else he'd ever witnessed in his many years of being present as people died, he said. Quiet, holy, filled with peace and discernible power.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[AtlanticMike]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've confused me, because you were talking about priesthood blessings, which only an ordained man can give, but now you've changed to talking about priesthood power that comes to everyone through the endowment.

I answered your question in regards to priesthood blessings, which women cannot give, even those endowed with priesthood power.

 

Sorry for confusing you. You said "I dont know that priesthood is a power that resides in a ordained man." So I was trying to make a point that priesthood power is available to ordained men and women. You then said "I think priesthood is Authority" and again I was trying to point out that priesthood is Authority, but it's also a power, a power you can lose through disobedience. My point being, if you can lose the power to exercise priesthood, then its something you hold, and I think its held  inside you, because it's a gift.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

What I'm saying is even though someone may have been given authority to bless people, there worthiness/righteousness determines if they have priesthood power. What if he's unworthy, is his power diminished?

 

 That's what featherstone is saying. If that priesthood holder was unworthy,he wouldn't of been able to call that youngman back from the dead because his priesthood power would of been weakened because of sin.

All of us sin. There is only one perfect man who has ever walked the earth. 
 

But despite the fact that priesthood holders are subject to one degree or another to sin, they can still give efficacious priesthood blessings — with one caveat: Certain sins might render them UNWORTHY to exercise power in their priesthood. From this quote, Elder Featherstone evidently believes (or believed; he has passed on now) that a pornography habit is one such sin. I tend to agree with him. 
 

But from this, are we free to conclude that one worthy man who is more circumspect in his obedience than another worthy man necessarily exercises more power in his priesthood than the other? I don’t think so. I’m like Bluebell in that I have not been taught such a thing and that I tend not to believe it. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Emily]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

think if nonmormon archaeologists announce what you say, church membership would go from 16,000,000 to 100,000,000 in a matter of a couple of years.

You are confusing proof that the book is of ancient origin with proof that the book is of Godly origin. People need to be convinced of the latter fact to make a commitment to the gospel.

I would contend that we already have enough evidence to support the idea that the book is of ancient origin. It's the angel story and the whole sacred grove thing that makes scholars skeptics.

But even with the provenance issues, there are non-member scholars who have admitted there is something genuine going on with the book.

Some scholars with reasonable intellectual honesty will admit to being stumped by ancient elements, but hostility to the church will still lead them to insist it's all a fraud.

Harold Bloom:

I can only attribute to his genius or daemons his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly. (Harold Bloom, The American Religion, 101.)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43042299?seq=1

Other scholars who are friendly or neutral to the church give a nod to accuracies, and point out correlations to ancient literature, but their interest remains scholarly. They don't go to the Lord to ask if it's "true", anymore than I have prayed about the spiritual truth value of the "Letters of the Younger Pliney." 

Margaret Barker is an excellent example of the friendly type of scholar.

• https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/Margaret%20Barker%2C%20Joseph%20Smith%20and%20Preexilic%20Israelite%20Religion%2C%202005.pdf

If we found a road marker that said, "This way to Zarahemla" you'd get the same flurry of interest amongst the more scholarly of the LDS membership that the "Nahom" marker has received. Some papers would be published at BYU, the Salt Lake Tribune might mention it. A few Middle American Scholars would scratch their head and say, "Damn, that Smith guy got another one right. How did he do it?" Then they'd go back to publishing papers on topics that will get them grant money, or make a good book.

 

And the Missionaries will continue to spend their time teaching investigators the Gospel of Christ and encouraging them to read Moroni 10.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Emily

[AtlanticMike]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All of us sin. There is only one perfect man who has ever walked the earth. 
 

But despite the fact that priesthood holders are subject to one degree or another to sin, they can still give efficacious priesthood blessings — with one caveat: Certain sins might render them UNWORTHY to exercise power in their priesthood. From this quote, Elder Featherstone evidently believes (or believed; he has passed on now) that a pornography habit is one such sin. I tend to agree with him. 
 

But from this, are we free to conclude that one worthy man who is more circumspect in his obedience than another worthy man necessarily exercises more power in his priesthood than the other? I don’t think so. I’m like Bluebell in that I have not been taught such a thing and that I tend not to believe it. 

Reading the quote below makes it seem to me that alot of "sins" can diminish your priesthood power, not just pornagraphy. I can't remember the book, but years ago I read that the priesthood is given all at once, meaning an 18 year old has just as much priesthood as the prophet. But, because of unrepentant sin, the amount of priesthood power we wield becomes smaller and smaller, eventually becoming nothing at all, like the statement below says.

Edited March 1, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[AtlanticMike]

27 minutes ago, Emily said:

You are confusing proof that the book is of ancient origin with proof that the book is of Godly origin. People need to be convinced of the latter fact to make a commitment to the gospel.

No not at all. If there was proof like loudmouthmormon described, people would flock to the church. Years ago the BOM was considered to be of ancient and Godly origin. The more I study the more I realize there's a good chance in 20 to 30 years the BOM will be seen as a book that builds character and used to strengthen faith through its stories, but not seen as a book of history like it used to be among latter day saints. 

     I guarantee to you if artifacts like what loudmouthmormon described were found, missionaries would have pictures of every artifact found and had been authenticated by non Mormons. The church would spend millions of millions of millions on advertising showing how we have proof to back up the stories in the BOM. And that would be a great way to build faith, there's nothing wrong with coming to the gospel thru a fact based assessment of the gospel. There's lots of ways to gain a testimony of the gospel. 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If there was proof like loudmouthmormon described, people would flock to the church.

Yep, just like how all the Jews in Jesus's day flocked to the early church after personally witnessing His miracles ... .

[Emily]

46 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

If there was proof like loudmouthmormon described, people would flock to the church. Years ago the BOM was considered to be of ancient and Godly origin. The more I study the more I realize there's a good chance in 20 to 30 years the BOM will be seen as a book that builds character and used to strengthen faith through its stories, but not seen as a book of history like it used to be among latter day saints. 

We will simply have to disagree on both of these points. My examination and interpretation of existing data has led me to conclude exactly the opposite of your theories, so we aren't likely to come to any consensus.

As such, I'm sharing the links for forum participants who have not yet made up their minds on the subject and would like to conduct further research.

Articles Regarding the Trajectory of Evidence for the Ancient Origins of the Book of Mormon:

*https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

*https://www.jstor.org/stable/43045053 (or alternately) PAGE 83: "44:4 – BYU Studies" https://byustudies.byu.edu/journal/44-4/

A page with several videos exploring topics regarding the BoM relationship to the ancient world:

"2013 BYU Church History Symposium | Religious Education" https://religion.byu.edu/event/2013-byu-church-history-symposium

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Emily

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep, just like how all the Jews in Jesus's day flocked to the early church after personally witnessing His miracles ... .

And how all the Witnesses stayed with the Church. 

[AtlanticMike]

18 minutes ago, Emily said:

We wll simply have to disagree on both of these points. My examination and interpretation of existing data has led me to conclude exactly the opposite of your theories, so we aren't likely to come to any consensus.

And that's fine, we dont have to agree on everything, that's what makes life fun. But, my point is everyone I know who's in their 60s or 70s have always believed that the BOM is a book of history. My mom still thinks all the american Indians are lamanites, not a small fraction, all of them. She still thinks they will turn white and delightsome one day.  Our understanding of what the BOM is has really changed in the past 30 years, all I'm saying is in the next 30 we could see even bigger changes.