Priesthood healing blessings.... somewhat pointless, yes?

[myboynoah]

I've had at least two very strong experiences as a result of priesthood blessings, one of which I would swear that I was healed from some great mysterious illness, and if I were still a believing member one that I would wheel out occasionally to hold up my faith or to instill it in others. Looking back, I remember wanting so bad to believe in a miracle, and I was so early in my illness that for all I know it was indigestion, that I know recognize that there was nothing miraculous about it, and anyone believing my selective recounting of the events would be foolish to not treat it with the utmost skepticism.

It's the same as if a guy thinks he's seen a ghost, and tries hard to convince all his friends that ghosts therefore exist. He didn't notice the fan that moved the lampshade that made him think he saw a ghost, and he's certainly not going to include that point in his recounting, being unaware of it (or maybe even if he is aware of it). Any story retelling a spiritual experience must therefore be absolutely discounted.

Just because you say so?

[woot]

Just because you say so?

Expound? Not sure how that is relevant to anything I said.

[myboynoah]

Expound? Not sure how that is relevant to anything I said.

You preceded your statement with 1) your conclusion that what you might have thought was a faith healing really wasn't and 2) an illustration of how one might misinterpret a fan blowing on a lampshade as a "ghost", or even intentionally ignore the fan altogether in retelling such an event.

I assume your statement, as absolutely conclusive as it sounds, is your opinion.

[woot]

You preceded your statement with 1) your conclusion that what you might have thought was a faith healing really wasn't and 2) an illustration of how one might misinterpret a fan blowing on a lampshade as a "ghost", or even intentionally ignore the fan altogether in retelling such an event.

I assume your statement, as absolutely conclusive as it sounds, is your opinion.

Of course it is. I provided arguments for why such accounts are unreliable and concluded that they are unreliable. If you have a rebuttal, provide it. I assume this isn't your first conversation, so I'm not clear what the problem is.

[Tim]

I've had at least two very strong experiences as a result of priesthood blessings, one of which I would swear that I was healed from some great mysterious illness, and if I were still a believing member one that I would wheel out occasionally to hold up my faith or to instill it in others. Looking back, I remember wanting so bad to believe in a miracle, and I was so early in my illness that for all I know it was indigestion, that I know recognize that there was nothing miraculous about it, and anyone believing my selective recounting of the events would be foolish to not treat it with the utmost skepticism.

It's the same as if a guy thinks he's seen a ghost, and tries hard to convince all his friends that ghosts therefore exist. He didn't notice the fan that moved the lampshade that made him think he saw a ghost, and he's certainly not going to include that point in his recounting, being unaware of it (or maybe even if he is aware of it). Any story retelling a spiritual experience must therefore be absolutely discounted.

I wonder, woot, if you really meant that to come out as strongly as it came out. Perhaps you mean that you've chosen to discount the telling of any spiritual experience, but it seems like you're suggesting that those who choose not to discount those stories are somehow misguided. Everyone else is mistaken but you, etc... As a man of science, are you really willing to suggest that an entire approach to a concept should be based solely on one viewer's analysis of the evidence? That's essentially what it seems like you're doing here.

[woot]

I wonder, woot, if you really meant that to come out as strongly as it came out. Perhaps you mean that you've chosen to discount the telling of any spiritual experience, but it seems like you're suggesting that those who choose not to discount those stories are somehow misguided. Everyone else is mistaken but you, etc... As a man of science, are you really willing to suggest that an entire approach to a concept should be based solely on one viewer's analysis of the evidence? That's essentially what it seems like you're doing here.

You've perfectly stated the exact opposite of my point. Personal experiences are told from a biased, limited perspective. It is impossible to recount the entirety of an experience, so the details that the teller finds to be most important are included, to the exclusion of all else. It is therefore impossible to know whether they are totally making it up, whether they were on acid or otherwise hallucinating at the time, whether they just didn't notice the actual mechanisms at work (ie. the fan in my previous example), whether they don't understand cause and effect in a sufficient manner, or any number of other deficiencies.

I include myself in all of this, of course, just so there's no sense of condescension. All humans make terrible eye-witnesses.

[Sleeping in EQ]

As someone who doesn't shy away from being critical, I have a few reservations about Oaks' talk (such as the one mentioned by Leb) but I think it's a step in the right direction.

My hands are sort of tied on this, but I'll make a suggestion: the gifts of healing and of being healed are two of the mysteries that can be discovered.

They aren't restricted to priesthood authority, either.

[Moliere]

I've had at least two very strong experiences as a result of priesthood blessings, one of which I would swear that I was healed from some great mysterious illness, and if I were still a believing member one that I would wheel out occasionally to hold up my faith or to instill it in others. Looking back, I remember wanting so bad to believe in a miracle, and I was so early in my illness that for all I know it was indigestion, that I know recognize that there was nothing miraculous about it, and anyone believing my selective recounting of the events would be foolish to not treat it with the utmost skepticism.

It's the same as if a guy thinks he's seen a ghost, and tries hard to convince all his friends that ghosts therefore exist. He didn't notice the fan that moved the lampshade that made him think he saw a ghost, and he's certainly not going to include that point in his recounting, being unaware of it (or maybe even if he is aware of it). Any story retelling a spiritual experience must therefore be absolutely discounted.

YOu have a valid point with the ghost and lampshade scenario, however I don't see how you make the leap from that story to the bolded sentence. I think it's fine to be skeptical when someone shares a healing story, but to automatically say that experience should be discounted is too far of a leap. There is a big difference between being skeptical and discounting an experience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I include myself in all of this, of course, just so there's no sense of condescension. All humans make terrible eye-witnesses.

Hence they are always wrong when it comes to spiritual matters?

[woot]

Hence they are always wrong when it comes to spiritual matters?

No, just that personal experiences are worthless in evaluating truth claims.

I'm not saying anything that isn't standard in "baloney detection." I assume everyone here discounts the majority of truth claims they run across. How do you evaluate them?

[woot]

YOu have a valid point with the ghost and lampshade scenario, however I don't see how you make the leap from that story to the bolded sentence. I think it's fine to be skeptical when someone shares a healing story, but to automatically say that experience should be discounted is too far of a leap. There is a big difference between being skeptical and discounting an experience.

It would seem that way, but the point is that there is no way of knowing whether the story being told is based on a "fan" that they're not telling you about. If independent evidence arises, then such testimonies might have some value, but on their own, there's simply nothing you can do with them.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I

If men are imperfect representatives of God as holders of the priesthood, why give men the priesthood at all? Why not just respect each individual's actions instead of putting people in positions of authority over each other? Why not just allow for direct access?

Or, did God actually intend that the system be designed such that we are to serve each other in official priesthood capacities?

All good questions, so I will throw out another. Why would one need an official title/capacity to render service to another person?

[Moliere]

This doesn't exactly fit here, but I didn't want to start another thread and it does go along with healings. A FB friend posted this and I found it amusing. There is some language and atheistic rhetoric so beware...

[YOUTUBE]3BBZcbeTq0k[/YOUTUBE]

[tooblue]

No, just that personal experiences are worthless in evaluating truth claims.

I'm not saying anything that isn't standard in "baloney detection." I assume everyone here discounts the majority of truth claims they run across. How do you evaluate them?

What definitive study or body of evidence are you relying upon to support such a sweeping generalization about humans being terrible eyewitnesses? Is your opinion based primarily on your personal experience? If so, by your own standard, that means that your conclusions on this subject should be discounted.

[tooblue]

All good questions, so I will throw out another. Why would one need an official title/capacity to render service to another person?

Do you require an official title/capacity to render medical services to another person as a doctor? If so, why?