Re: So is magic officially part of the gospel now?
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:12 am
No magic anymore...we're all just muggles now.
A place to love and accept the people who think about and live Mormonism on their own terms.
https://tranzatec.net/
Here is one place they still somewhat exist: The Coffin Canes of Joseph Smith. They were supposed to have powers to heal and probably do other things normally attributed to the Melchizedek priesthood. The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers have one on display at their museum.2bizE wrote:I need to get me a divining rod/rock and hat starter kit to take to SS. That could help better understand the lessons. Anyone know when the divining rods went out of fashion with church leaders?
I did not know about the coffin canes. Interesting how early leaders claimed the canes had magical powers perhaps like moses' staff.Corsair wrote:Here is one place they still somewhat exist: The Coffin Canes of Joseph Smith. They were supposed to have powers to heal and probably do other things normally attributed to the Melchizedek priesthood. The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers have one on display at their museum.2bizE wrote:I need to get me a divining rod/rock and hat starter kit to take to SS. That could help better understand the lessons. Anyone know when the divining rods went out of fashion with church leaders?
So they should have been given to Brigham's and Heber's wives?Zadok wrote:Even if the coffin cane doesn't heal, it's good for hitting pit-Bulls when they hump your leg.
Whatever powers that might be attributed to canes, I am confident that this would not be part of their expected abilities. Surely the treatment of women in D&C 132 would not be mitigated simply by canes from Joseph's coffin.Hagoth wrote:So they should have been given to Brigham's and Heber's wives?Zadok wrote:Even if the coffin cane doesn't heal, it's good for hitting pit-Bulls when they hump your leg.
Corsair wrote:Hagoth wrote:
This leads to crucial problem that appears to be unresolvable. How would we tell that the "loose" vs. "tight" translation of prayers/scripture/ordinances is correct? Mormons are incessantly concerned about the supreme importance of ordinances. How could we possibly detect that some "ordinance" did not work? If exact verbiage is crucial for salvation, then exact policing of ordinances needs to be controlled and somehow "tested" for accuracy. If some loose variance is allowed, then why are Mormons so profoundly confident that other baptisms are wrong? How could we determine that Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, and those polygamous FLDS are wrong and the ordinances must be performed by the explicit authority of the institutional LDS church headed by Tom Monson? How would we ever actually know?
That's the way it was in 12th grade play practice. If you didn't get the line right the drama teacher made you do it over until you got it right.Hagoth wrote: If Harry Potter has taught us anything it's that you have to say the words just right for the magic to work.
I was taught that a gentleman does not discuss loose vs tight in public.Hagoth wrote:This leads to crucial problem that appears to be unresolvable. How would we tell that the "loose" vs. "tight" translation of prayers/scripture/ordinances is correct?
You can discuss it in a bishop's office though.Zadok wrote:I was taught that a gentleman does not discuss loose vs tight in public.Hagoth wrote:This leads to crucial problem that appears to be unresolvable. How would we tell that the "loose" vs. "tight" translation of prayers/scripture/ordinances is correct?
There is increasing concern over bishops sending out text messages to youths concerning their "tight vs. loose" application of LDS moral standards.Zadok wrote:You can discuss it in a bishop's office though.Spicy McHaggis wrote:I was taught that a gentleman does not discuss loose vs tight in public.
As though closed door meetings alone with adolescents to talk about sexual behaviors shouldn't have been enough to prompt increasing concerns. What a weird organization I belong to. Anyway, I've seen some things here and there in discussion groups about bishops sending texts to youth, is this a concern that is going to gain any traction, or just another inappropriate thing we all get to lament here without much more attention being paid to it?Corsair wrote:There is increasing concern over bishops sending out text messages to youths concerning their "tight vs. loose" application of LDS moral standards.Zadok wrote:You can discuss it in a bishop's office though.Spicy McHaggis wrote:I was taught that a gentleman does not discuss loose vs tight in public.
There has been a call on Reddit to document and screenshot if your bishop has texted you any "worthiness" questions. This is definitely something that could end up being a news worthy embarrassment to the LDS church. I can easily see that bishops and ward leaders get an injunction to cut that out because it is material evidence that could show up in a civil lawsuit.Not Buying It wrote:As though closed door meetings alone with adolescents to talk about sexual behaviors shouldn't have been enough to prompt increasing concerns. What a weird organization I belong to. Anyway, I've seen some things here and there in discussion groups about bishops sending texts to youth, is this a concern that is going to gain any traction, or just another inappropriate thing we all get to lament here without much more attention being paid to it?
It works - sometimes - because it's based on the placebo effect mostly.wtfluff wrote:This. ^^MoPag wrote:Or consecrated oil, or bread and water that have been blessed with priesthood power. It's all magic. Just not magic you are familiar with.Spicy McHaggis wrote:Just as believable as seer stones.
It's ALL based on magic. (Which is why it doesn't work.)
So you're telling me there's a chance!Newme wrote:It works - sometimes - because it's based on the placebo effect mostly.wtfluff wrote:This. ^^MoPag wrote: Or consecrated oil, or bread and water that have been blessed with priesthood power. It's all magic. Just not magic you are familiar with.
It's ALL based on magic. (Which is why it doesn't work.)
"Land o' Goshen, Heber! It's 1 AM. Where's you all been?"Zadok wrote:I was taught that a gentleman does not discuss loose vs tight in public.
The natural continuation of this satirical dialog gets creepy really quickly, involving the euphemism "a few months shy of fifteen".moksha wrote:"Land o' Goshen, Heber! It's 1 AM. Where's you all been?"
"Just out getting tight, Vilate."
wtfluff wrote:So you're telling me there's a chance!Newme wrote:It works - sometimes - because it's based on the placebo effect mostly.wtfluff wrote: This. ^^
It's ALL based on magic. (Which is why it doesn't work.)
Gonna have to remember this when my Alzheimer's kicks in. Then again, it's Alzheimer's, so remembering might be a problem...
Will the placebo effect actually help when my Alzheimer's kicks in?Newme wrote:wtfluff wrote:So you're telling me there's a chance!Newme wrote: It works - sometimes - because it's based on the placebo effect mostly.
Gonna have to remember this when my Alzheimer's kicks in. Then again, it's Alzheimer's, so remembering might be a problem...
Still, you remind me of what I often wonder: Why do so many ignore the placebo effect?
The placebo effect is not some magic that has no influence - it's real - real enough that FDA requires medications be tested against it.