Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

THey were not lies. They were the positions and reasons  from those you call apostles and prophets. We even have a FP Statement from George Albert Smith and team codifying these what you call lies. and if they lied then your apostles and prophets are blatant liars and apparently God could not correct their lies.  I imagine I will get kicked out of this thread for saying this but it is pretty obvious this is a huge problem for giving and credence to what the LDS prophets and apostles say.  I mean based on your own words they were liars.

I would agree they were not lies.  A lie is when someone knows the truth of something but says something different than what they know to be true.  To be in error is not a lie.  If one believes a false view, it is not a lie even if the view is false.  It simply means to be wrong.  Being wrong is a human condition that we all are guilty of from time to time.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THey were not lies. They were the positions and reasons  from those you call apostles and prophets. We even have a FP Statement from George Albert Smith and team codifying these what you call lies. and if they lied then your apostles and prophets are blatant liars and apparently God could not correct their lies.  I imagine I will get kicked out of this thread for saying this but it is pretty obvious this is a huge problem for giving and credence to what the LDS prophets and apostles say.  I mean based on your own words they were liars.

Of course they were lies, at least at the start.  Then, after awhile, with enough repetition, they become normative.  Given enough time, they even seem true.  According to the US Ambassador to Egypt, President Gamal Abdel Nasser used to make ridiculous statements, and then he began to believe his own malarky.  Hitler had the same problem.  Then it all comes a cropper.

White southern pastors used to spread the same nonsense, and most of the white southern crackers even believed it.  Helped them live with the crimes they committed against Black folk on a daily basis.  When Hitler preached about the Aryan Master Race, Germans and Austrians enthusiastically supported his lies -- willingly executing Jews, Gypsies, and other "subhumans" on a massive scale.  Humans have a hard time learning elementary lessons from such mistakes.  That even includes lying about the actual history of the LDS Church.  Anyone can be a victim of lies.  We need to learn to get our facts straight before lashing out in anger and vitriol.  You have yet to learn that lesson, Teancum.

Plato dealt calmly and rationally with the death sentence meted out to his great and gentle teacher, Socrates.  Socrates drank poison hemlock to fulfill his death sentence.  It was a democratic sentence in the birthplace of demokratia, Athens.  Yet half the population of Athens was slave, white slaves.  Such a great and civilized city-state, Athens.  That would also later be true of Rome, a wonderfully civilized capital of a great empire.  Yet half the population of Rome was slave.  And Romans loved their regular entertainment in the Colosseum, wild beasts tearing up human victims for the entertainment of the masses.  Civilization comes hard, Teancum.  There is very little evidence that we humans have learned key lessons yet.  Self-righteously pointing fingers is much easier than taking a close look at ourselves.

Quote

Modern slavery is a multibillion-dollar industry with just the forced labor aspect generating US$150 billion each year. The Global Slavery Index (2018) estimated that roughly 40.3 million individuals are currently caught in modern slavery, with 71% of those being female, and 1 in 4 being children.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

We all pretend to be modern and civilized.  There is very little evidence to support our delusions of grandeur.

[Teancum]

37 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree they were not lies.  A lie is when someone knows the truth of something but says something different than what they know to be true.  To be in error is not a lie.  If one believes a false view, it is not a lie even if the view is false.  It simply means to be wrong.  Being wrong is a human condition that we all are guilty of from time to time.

Yet these men, called prophets and apostles, taught these  things, made statements, even official statements about the ban.  And now it is all "Oh well they were all wrong and speculating."  If the ban was wrong why did not God intervene? Why did God not tell his prophets to change this sooner than 1978 at a time when there was great pressure on the Church as well as growth in Brazil where the ban caused problems?  This is one of the biggest reasons why I think LDS prophets and apostles are relatively useless. They have no better insight to the issues in the worlds and sometimes worse since dogma restricts their actions.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course they were lies, at least at the start.

Great. Then your prophets and apostles are liars and are essentially useless. If they did not have discernment and God's guidance on such an important doctrine then they cannot be trusted on anything else.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are assuming not a physical flood, but a spiritual/emotional one (“you are dead to me”)?

And possibly Ham marries his granddaughter and thus Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, is also his great granddaughter?  A great soap opera if I got it right…given the Bible had no issue spilling the alleged dirt on Lot and his daughters and Judah and his daughter in law, any guess why the relationship wasn’t made explicit?

I’m allowing both the global and non-global flood scenarios as options, since the curse works either way. It does not matter whether Egyptus’ grandmother was Canaan’s wife on the ark or a woman (a descendant of Cain or other cursed group) he met after the flood.

Option 1: Egyptus’ mother, wife of Ham, was a Canaanite (daughter or descendant of Canaan, son of Ham). Thus, both Eqyptus and Canaan carry his curse to their posterity.

Option 2: Ham’s mother was a descendant of Cain, and passed Cain’s curse to both Egyptus and Canaan, and Abraham now refers to this as the blood of the Canaanites.

Option 3: Egyptus’ mother, wife of Ham, was a descendant of Cain. She carried Cain’s curse to the Egyptians (Pharaohs), while Canaan carried his own curse to the Canaanites, but Abraham 1:21-24 seems to indicate that they are both Canaan’s curse.

And yes, great drama! Egyptus' mother is both Canaan's daughter and step-mother, And Egyptus is both Ham's daughter and great-granddaughter, and Canaan's half-sister to boot! I'm sure there's more!

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

does not matter whether Egyptus’ grandmother was Canaan’s wife on the ark

You mean Ham’s?  Canaan wasn’t born till after the ark.

[JustAnAustralian]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And yes, great drama! Egyptus' mother is both Canaan's daughter and step-mother, And Egyptus is both Ham's daughter and great-granddaughter, and Canaan's half-sister to boot! I'm sure there's more!

..." 'Cause I'm my own grandpa..."

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Great. Then your prophets and apostles are liars and are essentially useless. If they did not have discernment and God's guidance on such an important doctrine then they cannot be trusted on anything else.

For those who accept the false doctrine of infallibility, of course it should seem this way.  Black LDS PhD student Tarik LaCour has a much more balanced view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khThGVq1j6Q&t=613s

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

You mean Ham’s?  Canaan wasn’t born till after the ark.

Yes, Ham's... thank you -- 

 

[Olmec Donald]

On 2/10/2022 at 6:35 PM, Navidad said:

God's power is His to enact or delimit. He needs no humans to enact it. If God chooses to heal, that is an exercise of His power. He doesn't need a human to accomplish that does He? If God chooses to control the elements, does He need to do that through a human agency? God's power is His and His alone to exercise. I don't want to debate, so I will step out of this, but I can't comprehend what you all are trying to say. Sorry. If anything, I think a human's role is to get out of the way of God's power. We will muck it up almost every time!

Back when I was active LDS perhaps the most "real" part of my religion, in my mind at least, was when I was asked to give someone a blessing.  Just about everything else I did was pretty much administrative or ecclesiastical.  While I did approach my various duties prayerfully, there is something about being asked to give a blessing that puts you on the spot, because now YOU have got to be a conduit for God's power and you can't fake that.  Diligence and study and common sense can get you through most things in life, but none of them will heal someone else. 

At some point I took an interest in church history, and came across accounts of women giving blessings in the Nauvoo and early Utah Valley eras.  This had been approved by Joseph Smith, who cited Mark 16:17-18:  "And these signs shall follow them that believe, in my name they shall... lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."  No priesthood authority needed.  Hmmm.

Subsequent experiences led me to conclude that "priesthood authority" is not a necessary component of giving a blessing.  In fact the only instances of instantaneous healing of which I have first-hand knowledge did not include any citation of priesthood authority.  Briefly, I think the power that blesses someone comes from the exact same source whether the format involves a priesthood blessing, or some other practice, or prayer, or visualization, or intention, or making mud from dirt & spit and rubbing it on the person's eyes, or whatever.  And in my experience this power is indistinguishable from love. 

What then is the benefit of the LDS priesthood paradigm, in this area?

In my opinion the person believing that he has been given specific authority from God to bless people, that he has the right format to follow, which format has worked for many others in similar situations, helps to overcome FEAR and to have faith.  Fear is the barrier, as it is effectively the opposite of faith. 

Just to be clear, I no longer believe priesthood holders have been given a special healing power that is not completely accessible to everyone.  In my opinion what the priesthood ordination does is this:  It spotlights and validates something that was actually true about the person all along.  By way of analogy, the Scarecrow did not become intelligent when the Wizard gave him the diploma; he had been intelligent all along, but that diploma "gave" him permission to believe and behave consistent with his true nature.

So why would giving someone a blessing be any different from saying a prayer for them?  Well for one thing when YOU bless someone you have a lot more "skin in the game".  You can pray and it's all up to God and so you can "get away with" putting less of your energy into it; YOU laying your hands on the person puts YOU in the loop, and ime THAT is a magnificent learning experience.  Imo the LDS church lost something when it moved away from Joseph Smith's practice of allowing women to give blessings. 

So in other words I see the priesthood, in this context, as being a useful apprenticeship-like teaching device for a person who is trying to become more like Christ.  I do not see the priesthood as being an exclusive power and authority, in part because I've seen too many non-priesthood-holders do what the priesthood is supposed to enable (within the context of blessing and healing people). 

Obviously the above is NOT what the LDS Church teaches, it is just a snapshot of the belief of one ex-Mormon at this point in time. 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Navidad]

59 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Obviously the above is NOT what the LDS Church teaches, it is just a snapshot of the belief of one ex-Mormon at this point in time. 

Wonderfully well said. You see, whether an LDS priesthood holder or I pray - what we both do is petition Heavenly Father to exercise His power and heal our loved one. We are the petitioners, not the purveyors of either power, authority, or some special kind of our acting in His name. All any of us can do is sincerely and humbly ask Him to honor our prayer or petition and heal our loved one via His own wonderful love and power. As priesthood holders our task is to allow Him to work, not through us, but in response to our prayerful sincere request that He bring healing, not through us but by our sincere entreaty. That is the entirety of what any of us can do, male, female, LDS or non-LDS.

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet these men, called prophets and apostles, taught these  things, made statements, even official statements about the ban.  And now it is all "Oh well they were all wrong and speculating."  If the ban was wrong why did not God intervene? Why did God not tell his prophets to change this sooner than 1978 at a time when there was great pressure on the Church as well as growth in Brazil where the ban caused problems?  This is one of the biggest reasons why I think LDS prophets and apostles are relatively useless. They have no better insight to the issues in the worlds and sometimes worse since dogma restricts their actions.

repeating a lie and being a liar is not the same thing. God lets his people go into the wilderness. He is not a micromanager. He works through a still small voice and not a loud speaker. If you are not listening, he does not speak. He does not open your heart, you must open it yourself. There is a very good podcast you might find interesting:https://faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/

too often people, including church leaders, try to fill in the gaps by providing a plausible explanation to justify a belief. The exclusion of blacks was wrong, and it took many years for us to finlay find out way out of this error. 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

changed mind

Edited February 13, 2022 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

I know this is 27 pages in but i wanted to chuck out my 2 cents before responding to anything else that’s happening in the last couple pages. For the record I did not watch all of the talk, just the 12 min on priesthood and then some of you guys’ summaries of other things on the first few pages. 

The race one actually bothered me the least. When thinking about why, it came down to 3 things. I’d heard renditions of his viewpoint before this by well meaning people trying to give an explanation to this. So it didn’t have added shock value of something super outlandish. It’s been disputed and assumed as wrong by the majority of people who I’ve seen respond to this, which is a weird side relief. I first started studying this out in earnest 20 years ago and it’s kinda nice to see just how far this has moved away from these sort of arguments. And lastly, he did apologize. I know he’s said this before, but I hope considering this is likely the most  expansive of feed back he’s ever gotten, this one actually sunk in a little further. It’s easier to dismiss a young 20’s student who’s uncomfortable…it’s harder when it’s from official channels and a ton of people all at once…but We’ll see. 
 

On his first stuff about non-church members…that was cringey as all get out and way too a) simplified and b) black and white. In so much that it makes it inevitably wrong. I’m also not a fan of how patronizing to other beliefs it played off.

 

the one I liked the least was his women/priesthood stuff (though ironically there was more that I technically agreed with him on). I think it epitomized several of the underlying problems i have with him: 

1.) how he constructs exploratory questions is super flawed. He’s grasped onto the idea that the questions we ask guides our journey to understanding. Something I strongly agree with. But he does so in a way that reads off defensively to protecting a truth claim of his (that are oversimplified and absolutist). It has an added unspoken assumption that what we have right now on this subject is full and complete. Which is what bothers me most…out of all the topics he brought up this is the one that is in the most flux in understanding right now…but he pushes that into asserting a confidence in what we have is right which got us into trouble with the priesthood ban, IMHO. Which leads to ..
2) there isn’t enough humility in recognizing the limits to our current knowledge and our biases going into forming our thoughts and questions. He has obviously several biases and without the capacity to recognize knowledge holes, these biases become foregone truths and quasi doctrine. Again, this is exactly one of the problems with the priesthood ban and reading in modern racial constructs into the Bible (pre LDS faith) and then the BOM and then the POGP. An aside:  I still see that problem popping up in this thread around this too. What this did was instead of seriously scrutinizing our biases and therefore giving greater space for Godly correction, we can inadvertently close doors to greater revelation, insight, and when needed change.

 

with luv,

BD 

Edited February 13, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is a beautiful passage. What I can't figure out is that virtually every LDS Priesthood holder who talks about it needs to remind the listeners that it is the only authorized priesthood in the world. That need to remind everyone is the very opposite of the qualities noted in the passage you quoted. To me, it indicates a certain hubris and pride. Those are not characteristics of people who I want holding power! They remind me too much of 1950's Fundamentalist pastors and leaders, as does Brad Wilcox to bring this back to the subject. Those who truly are comfortable in their power don't need to talk about it with such obvious pride! I think it is not that I misunderstand the concept; I dislike its manifestation. I hope that makes sense even if though you won't agree with me. I enjoy the discourse. Thanks.

I am surprised that you equate not setting one’s heart on the things of the world and the honors of men, not dealing with hypocrisy and guile, not covering sins or gratifying pride, but rather seeking persuasion, knowledge, gentleness, meekness, patience, long-suffering, brotherly kindness, unfeigned love, faithfulness, charity, and virtuous thoughts with FundamentalIst preachers. They must have been exemplars of Christlike-like men…someone I would like to hang around with.

This is the good news of the Restoration…that angels from heaven came to earth under the direction of Jesus Christ and bestowed the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God on Joseph and Oliver. What are we to do? Hide it under a bushel? That would not please God.

It is not prideful to declare this as he has commanded us to do. I see neither hubris nor pride in the quoted scripture nor in testifying to the truthfulness of the Restoration. Quite the contrary.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

On 2/10/2022 at 4:35 PM, Navidad said:

I'm sorry I cannot comprehend this. God's power is His to enact or delimit. He needs no humans to enact it. If God chooses to heal, that is an exercise of His power. He doesn't need a human to accomplish that does He? If God chooses to control the elements, does He need to do that through a human agency? God's power is His and His alone to exercise. I don't want to debate, so I will step out of this, but I can't comprehend what you all are trying to say. Sorry. If anything, I think a human's role is to get out of the way of God's power. We will muck it up almost every time! Doesn't II Cor 12 indicate that He is made strong in our weakness? Take care.

You are not seeing God as a Father who teaches his children by allowing them to do things in his name so they can grow up to be like Him.

That concept is quite unimaginable for you I guess, clear as a bell to me.

Letting your children do it for themselves is crucial 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

.......................  The priesthood is given according to individual worthiness and not what some ancestor did.   .......................

Being a member of the tribe of Levi gave one the lineal right to priesthood, and still does today among the Jews.  Worthiness is not an issue.  Even the D&C recognizes that right by lineage for the Aaronic mainline within the tribe of Levi (kohen).  Judaism defines them as fully functional.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not seeing God as a Father who teaches his children by allowing them to do things in his name so they can grow up to be like Him.

That concept is quite unimaginable for you I guess, clear as a bell to me.

Letting your children do it for themselves is crucial 

Yep, the idea that God cannot work through us is a) contrary to most of my happiest, most sacred, most life-altering, most grace-filled personal experiences and, therefore, b) literally the saddest thing I've read all day.

I've long wondered why, as a Latter-day Saint, I often feel a much closer connection with my Orthodox and Catholic brothers -- and in many cases with my faithful non-Christian brothers -- than I do with many Protestants, but this outright aversion to God sharing anything with His children has brought me a bit more clarity today.

After having experienced what I have, this concept feels barren and impoverished at best or, at worst, like a hedge intentionally thrown up to prevent people experiencing the richest blessings that our Father, through the merits of His Son, is willing to pour out upon us.

I remember reading the debates between Luther and Erasmus as an undergraduate, and I understand why Luther painted himself (and the entire Protestant movement) into this corner, but it's a tragedy. It made me sad then. It makes me even sadder now.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep, the idea that God cannot work through us is a) contrary to so many of my happiest, most sacred, most life-altering, most grace-filled personal experiences and, therefore, b) literally the saddest thing I've read all day.

I've long wondered why, as a Latter-day Saint, I often feel a much closer connection with my Orthodox and Catholic brothers -- and in many cases with my faithful non-Christian brothers -- than I do with many Protestants, but this outright aversion to God sharing anything with His children has brought me a bit more clarity today. After having experienced what I have, this concept feels barren and impoverished to me.

Yes.

Theoretically if it were true, we could not even have an altar call experience to "accept Jesus".

God could not share his teachings to others of his children.

So much for Protestant missionaries or ministers doing good for anyone.

Sounds like they are deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist.

That cannot be right.  

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am surprised that you equate not setting one’s heart on the things of the world and the honors of men, not dealing with hypocrisy and guile, not covering sins or gratifying pride, but rather seeking persuasion, knowledge, gentleness, meekness, patience, long-suffering, brotherly kindness, unfeigned love, faithfulness, charity, and virtuous thoughts with FundamentalIst preachers. They must have been exemplars of Christlike-like men…someone I would like to hang around with.

I think I must not have expressed myself well. My view is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I am not correlating the Fundamentalists of the 1950s with any of the fruits of the Spirit that you mention. Quite the opposite.

[Mike Drop]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree they were not lies.  A lie is when someone knows the truth of something but says something different than what they know to be true.  To be in error is not a lie.  If one believes a false view, it is not a lie even if the view is false.  It simply means to be wrong.  Being wrong is a human condition that we all are guilty of from time to time.

Here’s the problem for me. I was born in the 70s and for almost a half century now I haven’t seen an actual prophet do any prophety stuff. We read about mighty miracles in the scriptures all the time. Joseph saw extraterrestrial beings, numerous extraterrestrials visited him up to 28 times. Not only did he restore the gospel of Christ, he restored the priesthood, the system that is going to govern this earth for 1000 years upon his return. 
 

You said “being wrong is a human condition that we are all guilty of time to time”, you’re are correct, 100%. But I was raised to believe these men are in direct contact with God. And it hurts my heart to see my religion 20 years behind the rest of the world on almost every single major decision. I’m yearning for leadership! When will the rest of the world look at our church and say, yep!! The Mormons are on the right track?

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not seeing God as a Father who teaches his children by allowing them to do things in his name so they can grow up to be like Him.

You probably are right. But I would add this nuance. What role did the child play in asking God to heal? He or she simply asked God to heal via His (God's own power). That is not a power or an authority, it is a petition. If as a result God heals, it is not because of some special authority or power on the part of the petitioner, is it? Does God grant a petition of a male LDS priesthood holder in a special way that He would not to in the presence of a petition of a daughter of His, or His child from another faith?

To use your analogy any child can petition a parent for something. Is that not true?  A person's experience of God's healing as a result of a petition, or in the absence of any petition (grace) is wonderful, is it not? When I pray in Christ's name, I do so to indicate that if and when anything comes of that prayer it is solely and only by and through Him. In my humanity I may in an imperfect way mirror His love, grace, and mercy to a dying world. However I have no capacity to reflect His power as did an OT prophet for example.

If I think I am the one accomplishing any good in His name, then I may become like Elijah under the broom tree, depressed and forlorn when my supposed efforts didn't have the effect I thought they would or should. You (Mark) often bring greater understanding of the LDS faith to me. I appreciate that. If you truly believe that you are doing something unique and specifically different as an LDS priesthood holder, when you ask for healing . . . special or different from any other petitioner doing the same (your wife, daughter, sister, Methodist neighbor) then I understand better some of the exceptionalism I often see and hear in the mind of the LDS priesthood holder, as I did in listening to the talk of Brad Wilcox.

Having said that I must agree with you that I absolutely do not see that we will ever grow up to be as God is. Perhaps that inability to comprehend that fact is what separates us the most. It may be profound or it may be as simple as the difference between "like" and "as."

If I might offer you an analogy of my own. Friday morning at 4:30am my son and I took off for the four hour drive to the states to see the doctor, pick up his new glasses, buy groceries and get our mail. At around 7am we were five miles south of the border. A rather large coyote ran out into the highway and we struck him (her). The coyote died and the accident resulted in the destruction of the car bumper and radiator. Yes, we have big coyotes here. We found ourselves on the side of the road, shaken but without injury.  Fortunately we had cell phone service so I called my wife back at home. I explained what happened and our situation, asking our employees to borrow a trailer, bring it and the truck to us to load up the car and return home. We have one road that leads to the US and it is heavily traveled by big trucks! I prepared my son that we would be missing his appointment and glasses and would have a three hour wait in the car. He did well with that.

My wife unbeknownst to me got on our ward whatsapp list and asked if anyone was traveling to the states between Entronque and Palomas, she would greatly appreciate it if they would offer us any help they could. Within half an hour my cell phone began ringing with offers of help from our LDS friends, whether they were all the way back in Colonia Juarez or half an hour down the highway headed on their own trip to the states. As you all know we are not members - they call us "faithful non-Members -Our Mennonites!" We had a number of offers of help from them including men who were willing to drive the three hours each way to bring our car back.

None of them knew that we had an accident and were in trouble. That would have been acting "as" God. They had no special foresight into our situation - now that would have been prophetic-like power! Having said that, when they found out we were in trouble, they jumped to action with no regard to their own schedule to help us. That was being "like" God. They reflected His love to us, even some who aren't particularly thrilled we are in the ward! I explained to them that our workers were bringing a truck and trailer and that we were safe and fine waiting for them to come get us.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that two complete strangers also stopped to help us, offering a "Mexican chain" tow into Palomas where they knew of a radiator repair shop. Another gave us water to drink and some snacks. We accepted the offer of the chain tow (if you know what that is) and the snacks, and found ourselves in half an hour in Palomas where there were restrooms and places to get something to eat, etc. I will probably never see the man who gave us the tow again. He also reflected Christ to us (I have no idea what if any faith he had) and refused all offers of money for his help. He wished us God's blessings and went on his way. As only can happen in a small Mexican town, people driving by us in the town began yelling at us "Aqui esta el mata coyote!" Here is the coyote killer! It was all in good humor. We were famous!

By mid-afternoon we were back home. Many people that day reflected kindness and love to us. Some were LDS, others probably Catholic or Pentecostal, my wife who has a "special" love for us, and my faithful workers who performed above and beyond! Our LDS friends were wonderful examples of God's love; not of His power. Both the ladies and men offered  to help. We are grateful for all those who offered or helped, and understand those who hurried along on their own life's journey that morning. God's love and His power (authority) are not the same. We saw lots of the former Friday morning and were grateful. In that sense all those who took time out of their busy day to offer us help were exceptional, weren't they? Thanks for reading this epistle.

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Back when I was active LDS perhaps the most "real" part of my religion, in my mind at least, was when I was asked to give someone a blessing.  Just about everything else I did was pretty much administrative or ecclesiastical.  While I did approach my various duties prayerfully, there is something about being asked to give a blessing that puts you on the spot, because now YOU have got to be a conduit for God's power and you can't fake that.  Diligence and study and common sense can get you through most things in life, but none of them will heal someone else. 

At some point I took an interest in church history, and came across accounts of women giving blessings in the Nauvoo and early Utah Valley eras.  This had been approved by Joseph Smith, who cited Mark 16:17-18:  "And these signs shall follow them that believe, in my name they shall... lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."  No priesthood authority needed.  Hmmm.

Subsequent experiences led me to conclude that "priesthood authority" is not a necessary component of giving a blessing.  In fact the only instances of instantaneous healing of which I have first-hand knowledge did not include any citation of priesthood authority.  Briefly, I think the power that blesses someone comes from the exact same source whether the format involves a priesthood blessing, or some other practice, or prayer, or visualization, or intention, or making mud from dirt & spit and rubbing it on the person's eyes, or whatever.  And in my experience this power is indistinguishable from love. 

What then is the benefit of the LDS priesthood paradigm, in this area?

In my opinion the person believing that he has been given specific authority from God to bless people, that he has the right format to follow, which format has worked for many others in similar situations, helps to overcome FEAR and to have faith.  Fear is the barrier, as it is effectively the opposite of faith. 

Just to be clear, I no longer believe priesthood holders have been given a special healing power that is not completely accessible to everyone.  In my opinion what the priesthood ordination does is this:  It spotlights and validates something that was actually true about the person all along.  By way of analogy, the Scarecrow did not become intelligent when the Wizard gave him the diploma; he had been intelligent all along, but that diploma "gave" him permission to believe and behave consistent with his true nature.

So why would giving someone a blessing be any different from saying a prayer for them?  Well for one thing when YOU bless someone you have a lot more "skin in the game".  You can pray and it's all up to God and so you can "get away with" putting less of your energy into it; YOU laying your hands on the person puts YOU in the loop, and ime THAT is a magnificent learning experience.  Imo the LDS church lost something when it moved away from Joseph Smith's practice of allowing women to give blessings. 

So in other words I see the priesthood, in this context, as being a useful apprenticeship-like teaching device for a person who is trying to become more like Christ.  I do not see the priesthood as being an exclusive power and authority, in part because I've seen too many non-priesthood-holders do what the priesthood is supposed to enable (within the context of blessing and healing people). 

Obviously the above is NOT what the LDS Church teaches, it is just a snapshot of the belief of one ex-Mormon at this point in time. 
 

 

there’s a lot here that I really like, actually. I think it does capture one aspect of the power of God in general, tied up in love. And when I was a temple worker and did have authority to put my hands on other’s heads to proclaim blessings i often felt that earnest tug, wishing I could have that outside of the walls. There’s things that I’ve found as useful point of accessing god’s power to fill in the Gap a bit, but i still do wonder if one day, that will come back. 
 

that said, your post made me think about an experience on my mission. Pre-mish i had been blessed with the gift if being perceptive and discerning things with people in my Patriarchal blessing. It was something I strongly believed and saw in myself more than once before, but on my mission, set apart via priesthood authority, that gift went on steroids. For example.. I could tell when people were lying, when things weren’t of God even if someone insisted they were, and I could recognize and name certain mental illnesses just by looking into their eyes on first meeting. It was weird…and cool. Now part of it I think ties with what you mentioned here. My mission gave me space to work out some of my biggest kinks that were blocking me in a lot of ways spiritually. So my personal capacity to use my spiritual gifts were magnified as I was personally healed. Being more at peace, more filled with love, less angry…that frees up a lot of spiritual space. But some of it wasn’t that. I got off my mission, have healed even more, and have continued to grow in faith…I’m still not perceptive like I was then.

This and other experiences are the ones that come to mind a lot when thinking about priesthood…it’s not just the spirit, but an induction into our role or apprenticeship with God. And in that capacity who we are is often magnified to meet the challenges we are called to work/face in the restorative work among god’s children. Here and on the other side. 

I think in part, if I was going to go with a singular word to describe it…it’s purpose. The thing you mentioned among others align us within said purpose and that then magnifies our capacities. As a missionary I was on a very singular purpose in a way I haven’t been called to do before or since. It magnified the traits in me that could most aptly be used in said work…including ones that I was still understanding myself. Said priesthood power still has an effect now, it’s just different in duration and avenues. Usually less of me is required and more of my talents are integrated into who I am/more easily accessible. Not that it’s less important or that I forget where they initially came from.
 

But it’s still different in ways I’m still working to describe and still don’t have a full picture of. It’s one that is growing though. Back as a missionary to say I, as a woman, was acting in priesthood power or authority was still taboo. It has become more normative now. Still, both in the topics for women and for a general understanding, i think we have a bit to go. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds like they are deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist.

That cannot be right.  

I see you are one in accord with Brad Wilcox! I have no idea what would lead you to say such a hateful thing! I cannot believe such a statement is the teaching of your church. So Protestants are "deterministic robot dummies for God as a ventriloquist!" May I quote you? I am sure that will go a long way toward positive inter-faith relationships! Congratulations! You have just outdone yourself and Brad Wilcox! I just spent an hour trying to craft a positive reply to your previous comment. How does your comment possibly not violate forum rules? More importantly how does it not violate your own faith? Now I am really confused!

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

Here’s the problem for me. I was born in the 70s and for almost a half century now I haven’t seen an actual prophet do any prophety stuff. We read about mighty miracles in the scriptures all the time. Joseph saw extraterrestrial beings, numerous extraterrestrials visited him up to 28 times. Not only did he restore the gospel of Christ, he restored the priesthood, the system that is going to govern this earth for 1000 years upon his return. 
 

You said “being wrong is a human condition that we are all guilty of time to time”, you’re are correct, 100%. But I was raised to believe these men are in direct contact with God. And it hurts my heart to see my religion 20 years behind the rest of the world on almost every single major decision. I’m yearning for leadership! When will the rest of the world look at our church and say, yep!! The Mormons are on the right track?

The Church is way ahead of the rest of the world: the policy change on the priesthood ban has been a blessing for Black members around the world, an institutional fixture for 44 years. The same cannot be said for social policy changes for Black people in the USA (for example). There is still a good deal of upheaval concerning their experience socially, economically, health disparity, etc. The Church did a much better job, as an institution, implementing and maintaining the change. That is hard for the world to accept, so critics look to the past. 

This does not excuse individual Church members or leaders for things such as those for which Brother Wilcox apologized.

Institutions by nature are conservative in that they generally maintain those things that work for them. They are successful, but take a long time to get things done, which helps entrench good things for the long term (look how long it takes to build Zion). The US government took 177 years and a war to get to the point of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and people are still unhappy about these issues); the Church took only 148 years to lift the ban -- and only 14 years from the Civil Rights Act --  and members of all races are happy with the blessings of the priesthood. So yes, we are, relatively speaking, right on track and ahead of society, and more successful in implementing change, in the ecclesiastical arena in which we operate, on this issue of equal rights for Blacks.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by CV75