Why didn't the Apostle see this coming?

[_maklelan]

Mak,

You should really discontinue the use of the word *naïve* in pointing out the fact that other posters do not seem to know what you think you know.

I think more pressing is the need for you all to stop pretending to know what I know better than I do.

Naïveté, in case you have given up on dictionaries altogether, is defined as lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. You have no basis for claiming that others on this board lack experience, wisdom or judgement.

I absolutely do. You and many like you speculate endlessly about motivations, processes, and relationships, and your speculation is almost unilaterally based on convenience for your personal perspectives on the shortcomings of the Church and its leaders. What it is very rarely based on is experience, wisdom, or particularly sound judgment. I have had direct knowledge of, and experience with, many of the motivations, processes, and relationships about which you and yours speculate. I'm not at liberty to talk about all of that, but where I am, I have done so. So, again, yes, I absolutely do have a basis for my claims that you are being naïve.

Perhaps you could try *ill informed*, or *uninformed"*, or even *ignorant of the relevant facts*, if you must.

Oh, I've used that language many times. The responses are no different. Don't insult my intelligence and pretend your primary concern is the proper nomenclature.

I imagine that some of the more experienced posters on this board are as annoyed as I am at your incessant characterization of others as naïve.

Imagine how I feel about your incessant characterizations of me and of the Church.

Because when it comes to all around naïvété, my friend, it is pretty clear that you are among the highest ranking folks around.

How do you figure? Please be specific.

Just a friendly suggestion.

Right.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Mak,

You should really discontinue the use of the word *naïve* in pointing out the fact that other posters do not seem to know what you think you know.

I think more pressing is the need for you all to stop pretending to know what I know better than I do.

Naïveté, in case you have given up on dictionaries altogether, is defined as lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. You have no basis for claiming that others on this board lack experience, wisdom or judgement.

I absolutely do. You and many like you speculate endlessly about motivations, processes, and relationships, and your speculation is almost unilaterally based on convenience for your personal perspectives on the shortcomings of the Church and its leaders. What it is very rarely based on is experience, wisdom, or particularly sound judgment. I have had direct knowledge of, and experience with, many of the motivations, processes, and relationships about which you and yours speculate. I'm not at liberty to talk about all of that, but where I am, I have done so. So, again, yes, I absolutely do have a basis for my claims that you are being naïve.

Perhaps you could try *ill informed*, or *uninformed"*, or even *ignorant of the relevant facts*, if you must.

Oh, I've used that language many times. The responses are no different. Don't insult my intelligence and pretend your primary concern is the proper nomenclature.

I imagine that some of the more experienced posters on this board are as annoyed as I am at your incessant characterization of others as naïve.

Imagine how I feel about your incessant characterizations of me and of the Church.

Because when it comes to all around naïveté, my friend, it is pretty clear that you are among the highest ranking folks around.

How do you figure? Please be specific.

Just a friendly suggestion.

Right.

Through the news we receive in Europe as compared to in the great US of A (YNewsMV), there is a considerable shortage of healthy people to aid in the provision of medical assistance to victims of the Ebola virus.

The nations worst hit have made calls for even untrained volunteers to assist. Think what the Mormon church could have provided (the number 274 comes to mind) in assisting with health care.

And wouldn't the assistance in combination with the power of the priesthood be a powerful tool against this evil disease?

[_maklelan]

Through the news we receive in Europe as compared to in the great US of A (YNewsMV), there is a considerable shortage of healthy people to aid in the provision of medical assistance to victims of the Ebola virus.

The nations worst hit have made calls for even untrained volunteers to assist. Think what the Mormon church could have provided (the number 274 comes to mind) in assisting with health care.

And wouldn't the assistance in combination with the power of the priesthood be a powerful tool against this evil disease?

The LDS Church has plenty of channels for providing aid in times of emergency (and are currently organizing efforts to aid in Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as Nigeria) without needing to just leave young missionaries alone in the middle of an Ebola outbreak that has killed almost 1,000 people. Certainly with all the criticisms that are leveled at the Church here for its ostensible complete disregard for the safety and security of missionaries, they can't be faulted for trying to protect them on this occasion. But perhaps posters here like it better when it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the Church. Wouldn't want anyone to lose out on the opportunity to take advantage of a deadly Ebola outbreak to sling some rhetorical barbs at the Church.

[_sock puppet]

I applaud the FP/12 for taking those missionaries out of ebola hotspots in west Africa. It must be difficult for the FP/12 to let CDC and State Dept warnings to Trump directives from Elohim as to where those missionaries were to spend two years. Here, here! for a bit of reason at the COB!

[_Themis]

Through the news we receive in Europe as compared to in the great US of A (YNewsMV), there is a considerable shortage of healthy people to aid in the provision of medical assistance to victims of the Ebola virus.

The nations worst hit have made calls for even untrained volunteers to assist. Think what the Mormon church could have provided (the number 274 comes to mind) in assisting with health care.

And wouldn't the assistance in combination with the power of the priesthood be a powerful tool against this evil disease?

The LDS Church has plenty of channels for providing aid in times of emergency (and are currently organizing efforts to aid in Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as Nigeria) without needing to just leave young missionaries alone in the middle of an Ebola outbreak that has killed almost 1,000 people. Certainly with all the criticisms that are leveled at the Church here for its ostensible complete disregard for the safety and security of missionaries, they can't be faulted for trying to protect them on this occasion. But perhaps posters here like it better when it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the Church. Wouldn't want anyone to lose out on the opportunity to take advantage of a deadly Ebola outbreak to sling some rhetorical barbs at the Church.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it was a bad decision to remove the missionaries from these areas. It was a good move to protect them from harm. I think what the real issue for people is the church not practicing what it preaches. The reality of no real priesthood power.The church knows this to some degree. Most members know this to some degree. We convince ourselves maybe there really is power and find nice stories we can preach at the pulpit, but very few members would not take themselves or loved one to the medical community when they need it. Members even shake their heads at those who try to practice what they preach for not seeing that it doesn't work.

[_maklelan]

I don't think anyone is suggesting it was a bad decision to remove the missionaries from these areas. It was a good move to protect them from harm.

According to the above poster, the Church was refusing to render aid when their aid was petitioned.

I think what the real issue for people is the church not practicing what it preaches. The reality of no real priesthood power.

Nowhere has the Church ever preached that the priesthood unilaterally heals all illness and injury, or that it means one should intentionally put themselves in harm's way in an effort to display its exercise, or that medical attention is unneeded.

The church knows this to some degree.

Lot of people around here seem to have insight into the motivations and attitudes of the leadership that far exceeds their access.

Most members know this to some degree.

Do you have data to show this, because a part of me wants to conclude this is just you projecting. I hope you can understand how I might look a little sideways at judgments made on this board about the membership as a whole, particularly when they presuppose the very cynicism held by critics here.

We convince ourselves maybe there really is power and find nice stories we can preach at the pulpit, but very few members would not take themselves or loved one to the medical community when they need it.

Which is what the Church preaches.

Members even shake their heads at those who try to practice what they preach for not seeing that it doesn't work.

Some members, sure, but that doesn't mean most members and the general leadership. I've seen many Church leaders give blessings to people in dire medical need immediately before or immediately after getting them professional medical attention. Are you suggesting that's all for show?

[_Themis]

According to the above poster, the Church was refusing to render aid when their aid was petitioned.

I actually read his post to understand what he was getting at which was about the priesthood. I suspect he knew the missionaries would not have the medial training needed to provide medical assistance, but they are supposed to have priesthood power.

Nowhere has the Church ever preached that the priesthood unilaterally heals all illness and injury, or that it means one should intentionally put themselves in harm's way in an effort to display its exercise, or that medical attention is unneeded.

While the church in modern times has never suggested members avoid medical services in favor of priesthood blessings, it does teach the priesthood power to heal is real, and can heal any aliment and even raise the dead. I remember a story a while back from a GA about raising the dead.

Lot of people around here seem to have insight into the motivations and attitudes of the leadership that far exceeds their access.

It's just my opinion based on observation. If they truly believed they would not promote seeing the doctor for things like cancer. To me this suggests to some degree they are not completely confident in the belief of priesthood power to heal.

Do you have data to show this, because a part of me wants to conclude this is just you projecting. I hope you can understand how I might look a little sideways at judgments made on this board about the membership as a whole, particularly when they presuppose the very cynicism held by critics here.

Again it is opinion based on observation. Most members are as likely to go see a doctor as atheists are when they feel ill. Most don't even get a priesthood blessing unless it is very severe. I have given many blessings over decades to people, so I may have some experience to base an opinion on. I also don't think what I say applies to every member equally. Some certainly demonstrate more faith in it then others.

Which is what the Church preaches.

To some degree. Like I said I suspect they have some doubts, but They tend to focus a lot more on priesthood power can heal.

Some members, sure, but that doesn't mean most members and the general leadership. I've seen many Church leaders give blessings to people in dire medical need immediately before or immediately after getting them professional medical attention. Are you suggesting that's all for show?

Priesthood blessings while seeking medical attention is the norm, but I am talking about those who will not seek medical attention because they believe completely in God's power to heal. I never said they numbered a lot in the church. In fact I think the numbers would be very very few.

Have a good weekend. Won't be back for a few days.

[_maklelan]

I actually read his post to understand what he was getting at which was about the priesthood. I suspect he knew the missionaries would not have the medial training needed to provide medical assistance, but they are supposed to have priesthood power.

This portion of the comment shows he did not care about the training of the missionaries:

The nations worst hit have made calls for even untrained volunteers to assist. Think what the Mormon church could have provided (the number 274 comes to mind) in assisting with health care.

While the church in modern times has never suggested members avoid medical services in favor of priesthood blessings, it does teach the priesthood power to heal is real, and can heal any aliment and even raise the dead. I remember a story a while back from a GA about raising the dead.

Yes, it does teach that. What about their actions shows they don't believe that?

It's just my opinion based on observation. If they truly believed they would not promote seeing the doctor for things like cancer.

This displays a shocking ignorance of the way the Church promotes the power of the priesthood. Belief that it is real in no way means that it can and always will unilaterally heal. The Church has always emphasized that the will of God is the determining factor, which is something we don't dictate.

To me this suggests to some degree they are not completely confident in the belief of priesthood power to heal.

Wouldn't that be convenient for your worldview?

Again it is opinion based on observation. Most members are as likely to go see a doctor as atheists are when they feel ill. Most don't even get a priesthood blessing unless it is very severe. I have given many blessings over decades to people, so I may have some experience to base an opinion on. I also don't think what I say applies to every member equally. Some certainly demonstrate more faith in it then others.

But you're willing to project onto the leadership, with which you've not indicated you've really had any experience.

To some degree. Like I said I suspect they have some doubts, but They tend to focus a lot more on priesthood power can heal.

It's one thing to say it's what you suspect. It's another to assert it as fact.

Priesthood blessings while seeking medical attention is the norm, but I am talking about those who will not seek medical attention because they believe completely in God's power to heal. I never said they numbered a lot in the church. In fact I think the numbers would be very very few.

No, what you said was that the Church doesn't practice what it preaches because there's no real priesthood power, which "the church knows . . . to some degree. Most members know this to some degree." There's a difference between getting a blessing and then going to the doctor and not believing in the power of the priesthood.

Have a good weekend. Won't be back for a few days.

Hope you enjoy the time away!

[Guest]

This portion of the comment shows he did not care about the training of the missionaries:

Actually he says these nations also want those who may not have medical training as most of what needs to be done does not need medical training. It's the last statement about priesthood power that bring up the underlying issue many are criticizing or poking fun at the church about. I didn't ignore that statement which is the most important one. The criticizing is not really about the church moving missionaries out for safety concerns.

Yes, it does teach that. What about their actions shows they don't believe that?

Maybe because they actually use the medical community instead of relying more on the belief in priesthood power to heal. Just today a lady called my mother because she was having chest pains and wanted an ambulance. Her concern was not at that moment to have the elders show up to give a blessing, but to have the medical establishment to show up and help her medically. She had tried to call 911 but somehow called 411 instead. This of course is the norm. I am sure she will probably ask for the elders if she really does have a health problem.

This displays a shocking ignorance of the way the Church promotes the power of the priesthood.

Knowing a little about you, I am comfortable that I have more experience then you.

Belief that it is real in no way means that it can and always will unilaterally heal.

Of course, because they see it doesn't work except in rare situations in which we cannot really eliminate natural causes. These are the situations where many of these stories make their way into talks over the pulpit. When I think about it, I cannot recall where the church actually promotes seeking medical attention, although I know they would. I do think the church is at least somewhat responsible here. unlike a few small religious groups I have seen.

The Church has always emphasized that the will of God is the determining factor, which is something we don't dictate.

Sure, for reason I gave above. Justification is needed for what we see in reality, which is very different from the stories we read in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

Wouldn't that be convenient for your worldview?

It's just what I see. Now that I don't believe many of the truth claims of the church, it does help to allow new ways of seeing things. I can still see and understand how I viewed it as a believer and why.

But you're willing to project onto the leadership, with which you've not indicated you've really had any experience.

I suppose you think it is impossible to actually read the many things they have said, and have knowledge about their own health issues and some of the ways they have tried to address them.

It's one thing to say it's what you suspect. It's another to assert it as fact.

I don't remember saying it was all fact, but maybe that is how some may have misread what I said.

No, what you said was that the Church doesn't practice what it preaches because there's no real priesthood power, which "the church knows . . . to some degree. Most members know this to some degree." There's a difference between getting a blessing and then going to the doctor and not believing in the power of the priesthood.

Yes to some degree. Is that hard to understand? Only a handful in the church would avoid medical services and rely solely on belief in priesthood power. What is hard to understand here? Most members would never go even close to this, and yes this includes the leaders. It's not hard to know about some of their health issues and that they used the medical community as much as most other people would. In many cases even more due to having more resources to get medical treatment. Having some degree of doubt does not mean one cannot still have some or a lot of belief it can work. It's not all or nothing here.

[_Bazooka]

Maklelan, is the doctrine that the power of the Priesthood can, without any other medical assistance, heal the sick?

I believe that is the doctrine. It's certainly what I was taught and what is still taught on a Sunday.

If you're saying the doctrine is that the power of the Priesthood can heal the sick only when combined with appropriate medical assistance, well, that's like claiming waving a daffodil above someones head can heal them providing it's done in conjunction with appropriate medical assistance.

For this audience—adults who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and young men who will soon receive this power—I will concentrate my remarks on healing blessings involving the power of the priesthood. We have this priesthood power, and we should all be prepared to use it properly. Current increases in natural disasters and financial challenges show that we will need this power even more in the future than in the past.

Many scriptures teach that the servants of the Lord “shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:18). 6 Miracles happen when the authority of the priesthood is used to bless the sick. I have experienced these miracles. As a boy and as a man I have seen healings as miraculous as any recorded in the scriptures, and so have many of you.

https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... g+the+sick

Of course, ever the fence sitter, Dallin also endorses the Daffodil method...

Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. We use nutrition, exercise, and other practices to preserve health, and we enlist the help of healing practitioners, such as physicians and surgeons, to restore health.

The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to sanctify that application to the healing of my body.” 1

Of course we don’t wait until all other methods are exhausted before we pray in faith or give priesthood blessings for healing. In emergencies, prayers and blessings come first. Most often we pursue all efforts simultaneously. This follows the scriptural teachings that we should “pray always” (D&C 90:24) and that all things should be done in wisdom and order.

Elder Oaks also suggests that...

Current increases in natural disasters and financial challenges show that we will need this power even more in the future than in the past.

...which presumably means he is agitating to get those missionaries back where their Priesthood power is desperately needed. In fact, come to think of it, why aren't the Lord's Apostles landing in Africa themselves as we speak? What better way than to lead by example, right? They could, given their standing with God, rain down blessings upon that nation such that the Ebola virus would be eradicated. Do they lack the courage of their spoken convictions?

Or perhaps he and his fellow Apostles are not too keen on putting their missionaries where their mouth is.....