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

[tooblue]

The effect of the blessing is dependent on faith and the Lord's will, not upon the words spoken by the Elder who officiates."
[/INDENT]

cheers.

His statement does not negate the need for the "officiate" or the need for the "words" of the officiate. His statement insists that both the "officiate" and the "words" are essential in order for the recipient, to in effect, be healed, dependent upon their faith, if it be God's will. It confirms the very idea that agency, or the freedom to choose is paramount to our ability to be healed.

Look at it a different way: is not the third party, or "officiate", in the healing blessing process, in similitude of Christ as our advocate? We require Christ, as a third party "officiate" in order to receive a remission for our sins, dependent upon our faith, accepting that it is God's will as the only means by which the demands of justice can be satisfied. The opportunity to exercise our agency and accept Christ's atoning sacrifice is paramount to our ability to be healed spiritually.

Furthermore, as per your diagram response: why have we been given an A, B, and C circle to use in our diagram if all we needed was A and B?

[tooblue]

I've gotta say, despite all of my cynicism I actually believe strongly in faith-healings. I don't know if it's a rational benefit for positive thinking, or if it's divine miracle, or what, but I've seen twice where the person's healing was downright miraculous.

One of them, the sick woman instantly stood up and walked just like at the revival meeting. It was totally crazy and pretty much unexpected. Although we do give "blessings" all the time, I think we suspect they won't really work, or - if they do - it won't be very dramatic. This was very dramatic. She stood up and was healthy. She left the room, showered up, and went about life normally. And she was definitely quite ill before the blessing. Not "in a coma" ill, but noticeably and obviously weak and ill.

I've never really seen anything like it.

One thing that was interesting, the blessing-speaker said "I command you to be healed" very forcefully. I wonder sometimes if people aren't forceful enough in their blessings. If it really is God's power, don't be such a wimp with it. Don't use it irresponsibly, but open up that firehose when you get a chance.

PS, would anyone who thinks I only post negative or critical stories please take note?

It may be the only notation, but it has been made

[Jarid in Cedar]

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

The only reason required is that you can go to jail. However, it does not take a medical license to provide the most valuable medical care that can be delivered: Comfort for the ill and injured. That is the service that is being provided by anyone who prays for the health of another.

In the case of faith healings, prayers, etc, God is the one doing the healing anyway. To say that you need to have an official priesthood title to be the conduit for such healings discounts the millions of such occurences that happen outside of the LDS faith.

[tooblue]

The only reason required is that you can go to jail. However, it does not take a medical license to provide the most valuable medical care that can be delivered: Comfort for the ill and injured. That is the service that is being provided by anyone who prays for the health of another.

In the case of faith healings, prayers, etc, God is the one doing the healing anyway. To say that you need to have an official priesthood title to be the conduit for such healings discounts the millions of such occurences that happen outside of the LDS faith.

And those laws serve to protect the masses from incompetency and fraudulent behavior that could cost someone their life. Why is it such a stretch to believe that similar spiritual laws can serve to the benefit of individuals fighting for their spiritual lives? While I agree that comfort, love and caring provided to someone who is physically ill is good medicine, it is only the very best medicine when it is done in conjunction with the care, knowledge and compassion administered by a well-trained physician.

No one has stated or even supposed that the lack of a priesthood holder administering a healing blessing discounts the millions of "such occurrences that happen outside of the LDS faith." But isn't it possible that the potential benefit of the presence of a priesthood holder could be similar to the potential benefit of the presence of well-trained physician?

Furthermore, while it is true God is doing the healing it is also true that God forgives us of our sins. However, in regards to sin, each of us requires Christ's atoning sacrifice in order to truly repent and receive a full remission of our sins. Christ, as third person, is essential to the repentance process. Could it be that the voice of the priesthood, in the healing blessing process, is in similitude of Christ's voice as our advocate?

[UtahDan]

And those laws serve to protect the masses from incompetency and fraudulent behavior that could cost someone their life. Why is it such a stretch to believe that similar spiritual laws can serve to the benefit of individuals fighting for their spiritual lives?

Because the vast majority of miraculous things that happen in this world do not follow the exercise of priesthood and the vast majority of times the priesthood is exercised nothing miraculous follows.

Apply that same test to doctors and healing and you get the opposite result. So not a good analogy IMO.

[tooblue]

Because the vast majority of miraculous things that happen in this world do not follow the exercise of priesthood and the vast majority of times the priesthood is exercised nothing miraculous follows.

Pure conjecture.

Apply that same test to doctors and healing and you get the opposite result. So not a good analogy IMO.

Once we throw out your conjecture, it is an good analogy, especially considering the initial discussion is between an artist and a doctor.

[UtahDan]

Pure conjecture.

Can't admit the obvious, huh?

[tooblue]

Can't admit the obvious, huh?

The obvious? To whom ... you, the all seeing eye that knows everything?