Rowe - Energy Sessions

[GrandMasterB]

The very fact that she wants donations and money for this kind of thing puts her into the realm of priestcraft. The entire point is that any gift we have of healing (even if it's a true gift from the Lord) is not something we should be using to get gain. Doctor's use scientific knowledge and that's a bit different than claiming healing powers, and offering access to such through nefarious means. I'd be interested to know just how many of these healing session participants have actually felt benefits long term... because I'm rather doubting that this is a real thing. It's like dancing around and sprinkling sand on someone's head (only over the phone which is even weirder) and pronouncing them healed.

It is real enough. However, it is Satan and his minions doing the healing if there is some.

[Gage]

The brain and mind can be a powerful thing. Is why subjects that are given placebos in medical studies are cured along with the ones given the real thing. These energy healers give a wonderful "pep talk"( I assume this is what happens, not much more you can over the phone) to their subjects and the people come out feeling wonderful and "cured". I dont believe and never will that there is any spirit involved or any angels involved, good or evil. I dont understand why even skeptics cannot understand this. There always has to be a spirit involved whether good or bad. Why cant it not be what it is, simply a person giving a pep talk to another person. The energy healers prey on the "more spiritual" (because they believe in a God and Angels) and claim angels help them and they have gifts from God, it is simply a ploy to sound more authentic. The real tragedy that they cannot see is it is leading them down a very dangerous path and a path that will condemn them. These people that think they are so spiritual and righteous and take part in this type thing are too ignorant to see what fools they make themselves look.

[JohnnyL]

Read about the role of Prophets in the scriptures. They aren't 'just people'. Pres. Monson and the members of the quorum of 12 are 'prophets, seers and revelators' who are set at the head of the church to lead and guide us. Look at Jesus' calling of the 12 disciples in 3rd Nephi and the role they were given in teaching, ministering to and serving the people. Look at Jesus calling the 12 apostles in the New Testament and the role they played after his ascension--they were his servants to do his will in spreading the gospel, teaching the people, administering ordinances etc.. Look at the Lord's own words in the Doctrine and Covenants about the role of Prophets as well as nature of the Prophets of the Old Testament. If you do this, there's no way you can think they are 'just people'.

'CAN' a prophet be a wolf in sheep's clothing? It's possible, but if you trust Heavenly Father then you won't assume Pres. Monson or any of our Prophets serving today are going to lead you into dark paths. As I said to Juliet, if you don't trust our living Prophets, then you don't have a testimony of their role and their mission. That's a problem for you and makes you vulnerable to being deceived. The Lord gave a warning against false prophets in the last days, but that was about those who were not properly ordained and set at the head of the church to lead it. The Lord didn't expect you to be second guessing and questioning HIS established divinely called authorities, worrying they might be deceiving you.

This thread is about a woman who has set herself up as a prophet(while she never calls herself one, she puts herself forward as one) and she's also a practitioner of what the news report called 'christ centered' energy healing and she charges money for her service--exactly what was warned about in the church statement. If you want to ignore their warning, you can, you have that choice, but don't say you weren't warned. And those who claim to have a testimony that we are lead by prophets of God, ought to be wise and heed the warning, not look for excuses and rationalizations so they can continue to do what they want.

They are, when it is all said in done, just people, like the rest of us. They have a particular calling and a particular position in the Church, but that doesn't make them anything more than mortal men with a different responsibility. No man or woman is greater, better, or more important than another man or woman in the grand scheme of things. We are neither inferior nor superior to the apostles. What you say from the scriptures can apply and in fact does apply to any servant of God who is acting within the capacity in which he or she has been placed.

Not to mention, many a "prophet" and an "apostle" has fallen. They are not exempt from the weaknesses and frailties of men. They stumble and fall. They say things that are wrong. They sometimes lead people astray and later generations have to denounce their words. "Apostles" sometimes commit adultery and need to be excommunicated. Sometimes, they apostatize. Sometimes they were traitors from the beginning.

We shouldn't place the apostles on a pedestal. They have their particular duty and calling in life, but, they are, when it is all said and done, just as dependent on Jesus Christ as any one of us. They are just people, mortal men, working out their salvation the best as they can just like the rest of us.

These are factual statements. Doesn't indicate a lack of faith, or a lack of trust, or apostasy, or doesn't make someone a bad Mormon or a bad person and if you believe differently than this, it doesn't make you superior and a better Mormon and neither does it make you an inferior or worse Mormon. We all have our faults and weaknesses.

-Finrock

This from Elder Packer:

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I began teaching seminary under Abel S. Rich, principal. He was the second seminary teacher employed by the Church and a man of maturity, wisdom, and experience. Among the lessons I learned from him was this: when I want to know about a man, I seek out those who know him best. I do not go to his enemies but to his friends. He would not confide in his enemy. You could not know the innermost thoughts of his heart by consulting those who would injure him.

We are teachers and should know the importance of the principle of prerequisites. It is easily illustrated with the subject of chemistry. No responsible chemist would advise, and no reputable school would permit, a beginning student to register for advanced chemistry without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The advanced course would be a destructive mistake, even for a very brilliant beginning student. Even that brilliant student would need some knowledge of the elements, of atoms and molecules, of electrons, of valence, of compounds and properties. To let a student proceed without the knowledge of fundamentals would surely destroy his interest in, and his future with, the field of chemistry.

The same point may be made with reference to so-called sex education. There are many things that are factual, even elevating, about this subject. There are aspects of this subject that are so perverted and ugly it does little good to talk of them at all. They cannot be safely taught to little children or to those who are not eligible by virtue of age or maturity or authorizing ordinance to understand them.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

President William E. Berrett has told us how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings.

This principle of prerequisites is so fundamental to all education that I have never been quite able to understand why historians are so willing to ignore it. And, if those outside the Church have little to guide them but the tenets of their profession, those inside the Church should know better.

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.

He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; / ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands— / But he that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:

“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.

“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

Cool. Thanks for sharing. You've shared this before. Some of it is false doctrine, some of it doesn't apply, and nobody is on a mission to point out the flaws of "great" men.

Apostles and prophets are just men. That is a fact. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong with stating it and acknowledging it.

-Finrock

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

[iWriteStuff]

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

If you're waiting for the church to reverse its position on "energy healing", you're going to be waiting a very.... very.....very.... long...... time.

Meanwhile, many more members will be exercising their priesthood, inviting others to exercise theirs, and growing stronger and stronger in the faith. I think I know which camp I'd rather be in. ;)




BTW shouldn't we all be in tent cities by now?

[Mark]

They are, when it is all said in done, just people, like the rest of us. They have a particular calling and a particular position in the Church, but that doesn't make them anything more than mortal men with a different responsibility. No man or woman is greater, better, or more important than another man or woman in the grand scheme of things. We are neither inferior nor superior to the apostles. What you say from the scriptures can apply and in fact does apply to any servant of God who is acting within the capacity in which he or she has been placed.

Not to mention, many a "prophet" and an "apostle" has fallen. They are not exempt from the weaknesses and frailties of men. They stumble and fall. They say things that are wrong. They sometimes lead people astray and later generations have to denounce their words. "Apostles" sometimes commit adultery and need to be excommunicated. Sometimes, they apostatize. Sometimes they were traitors from the beginning.

We shouldn't place the apostles on a pedestal. They have their particular duty and calling in life, but, they are, when it is all said and done, just as dependent on Jesus Christ as any one of us. They are just people, mortal men, working out their salvation the best as they can just like the rest of us.

These are factual statements. Doesn't indicate a lack of faith, or a lack of trust, or apostasy, or doesn't make someone a bad Mormon or a bad person and if you believe differently than this, it doesn't make you superior and a better Mormon and neither does it make you an inferior or worse Mormon. We all have our faults and weaknesses.

-Finrock

This from Elder Packer:

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I began teaching seminary under Abel S. Rich, principal. He was the second seminary teacher employed by the Church and a man of maturity, wisdom, and experience. Among the lessons I learned from him was this: when I want to know about a man, I seek out those who know him best. I do not go to his enemies but to his friends. He would not confide in his enemy. You could not know the innermost thoughts of his heart by consulting those who would injure him.

We are teachers and should know the importance of the principle of prerequisites. It is easily illustrated with the subject of chemistry. No responsible chemist would advise, and no reputable school would permit, a beginning student to register for advanced chemistry without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The advanced course would be a destructive mistake, even for a very brilliant beginning student. Even that brilliant student would need some knowledge of the elements, of atoms and molecules, of electrons, of valence, of compounds and properties. To let a student proceed without the knowledge of fundamentals would surely destroy his interest in, and his future with, the field of chemistry.

The same point may be made with reference to so-called sex education. There are many things that are factual, even elevating, about this subject. There are aspects of this subject that are so perverted and ugly it does little good to talk of them at all. They cannot be safely taught to little children or to those who are not eligible by virtue of age or maturity or authorizing ordinance to understand them.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

President William E. Berrett has told us how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings.

This principle of prerequisites is so fundamental to all education that I have never been quite able to understand why historians are so willing to ignore it. And, if those outside the Church have little to guide them but the tenets of their profession, those inside the Church should know better.

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.

He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; / ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands— / But he that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:

“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.

“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

Cool. Thanks for sharing. You've shared this before. Some of it is false doctrine, some of it doesn't apply, and nobody is on a mission to point out the flaws of "great" men.

Apostles and prophets are just men. That is a fact. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong with stating it and acknowledging it.

-Finrock

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

Thanks for again making Pres. Packers overall point in his message to church employees. Any other current or past General Authority you want to dump on while you are at it? By the way who do you think the Brethren were referencing when they released their current statement I will post again below? You dont think this so called Christ Centered Energy Healing craze with all the books and seminars going on spearheaded by people like Tammy Ward and others even crossed their minds?? But its sure nice to know you support the Brethren..

“We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders,” (LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins)

[AI2.0]

They are, when it is all said in done, just people, like the rest of us. They have a particular calling and a particular position in the Church, but that doesn't make them anything more than mortal men with a different responsibility. No man or woman is greater, better, or more important than another man or woman in the grand scheme of things. We are neither inferior nor superior to the apostles. What you say from the scriptures can apply and in fact does apply to any servant of God who is acting within the capacity in which he or she has been placed.

Not to mention, many a "prophet" and an "apostle" has fallen. They are not exempt from the weaknesses and frailties of men. They stumble and fall. They say things that are wrong. They sometimes lead people astray and later generations have to denounce their words. "Apostles" sometimes commit adultery and need to be excommunicated. Sometimes, they apostatize. Sometimes they were traitors from the beginning.

We shouldn't place the apostles on a pedestal. They have their particular duty and calling in life, but, they are, when it is all said and done, just as dependent on Jesus Christ as any one of us. They are just people, mortal men, working out their salvation the best as they can just like the rest of us.

These are factual statements. Doesn't indicate a lack of faith, or a lack of trust, or apostasy, or doesn't make someone a bad Mormon or a bad person and if you believe differently than this, it doesn't make you superior and a better Mormon and neither does it make you an inferior or worse Mormon. We all have our faults and weaknesses.

-Finrock

This from Elder Packer:

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I began teaching seminary under Abel S. Rich, principal. He was the second seminary teacher employed by the Church and a man of maturity, wisdom, and experience. Among the lessons I learned from him was this: when I want to know about a man, I seek out those who know him best. I do not go to his enemies but to his friends. He would not confide in his enemy. You could not know the innermost thoughts of his heart by consulting those who would injure him.

We are teachers and should know the importance of the principle of prerequisites. It is easily illustrated with the subject of chemistry. No responsible chemist would advise, and no reputable school would permit, a beginning student to register for advanced chemistry without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The advanced course would be a destructive mistake, even for a very brilliant beginning student. Even that brilliant student would need some knowledge of the elements, of atoms and molecules, of electrons, of valence, of compounds and properties. To let a student proceed without the knowledge of fundamentals would surely destroy his interest in, and his future with, the field of chemistry.

The same point may be made with reference to so-called sex education. There are many things that are factual, even elevating, about this subject. There are aspects of this subject that are so perverted and ugly it does little good to talk of them at all. They cannot be safely taught to little children or to those who are not eligible by virtue of age or maturity or authorizing ordinance to understand them.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

President William E. Berrett has told us how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings.

This principle of prerequisites is so fundamental to all education that I have never been quite able to understand why historians are so willing to ignore it. And, if those outside the Church have little to guide them but the tenets of their profession, those inside the Church should know better.

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.

He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; / ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands— / But he that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:

“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.

“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

Cool. Thanks for sharing. You've shared this before. Some of it is false doctrine, some of it doesn't apply, and nobody is on a mission to point out the flaws of "great" men.

Apostles and prophets are just men. That is a fact. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong with stating it and acknowledging it.

-Finrock

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

No, they were not 'just men' and you pay lip service to 'respecting' or 'supporting' them. Thoughts of whited sepulches filled with dead men's bones come to mind... You use your efforts to diminish and besmirch them and then pretend that's not exactly what you are doing--and we're supposed to ignore it?


The lengths you will go to to defend what you have embraced and want others to embrace, even though the church has cautioned against it.

[mirkwood]

BTW shouldn't we all be in tent cities by now?

No no no, that is NEXT spring silly. Haven't you learned the pattern of the call out yet?

[Finrock]

Satan uses "miracles" to deceive. Just because someone thinks they were healed by energy healing doesn't mean that healing came from God.

When can we know, then, that the healing came from God?

-Finrock

[setyourselffree]

Satan uses "miracles" to deceive. Just because someone thinks they were healed by energy healing doesn't mean that healing came from God.

When can we know, then, that the healing came from God?

-Finrock

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

[Finrock]

Satan uses "miracles" to deceive. Just because someone thinks they were healed by energy healing doesn't mean that healing came from God.

When can we know, then, that the healing came from God?

-Finrock

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

[setyourselffree]

Satan uses "miracles" to deceive. Just because someone thinks they were healed by energy healing doesn't mean that healing came from God.

When can we know, then, that the healing came from God?

-Finrock

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

[Finrock]

When can we know, then, that the healing came from God?

-Finrock

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

So, this one personal experience that you have speaks for everyone else and everyone other experience? Isn't that a hasty generalization?

In short, I'm taking issue with how you arrived at your conclusion. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion, I don't think you've made a strong case for it. You are essentially relying on a circular argument to reach your conclusion, which is not persuasive or convincing.

-Finrock

[Lizzy60]

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

So, this one personal experience that you have speaks for everyone else and everyone other experience? Isn't that a hasty generalization?

In short, I'm taking issue with how you arrived at your conclusion. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion, I don't think you've made a strong case for it. You are essentially relying on a circular argument to reach your conclusion, which is not persuasive or convincing.

-Finrock

My Bishop recently told us about an experience he had on his mission, when he was going to be apartment-bound with a recovering companion. He decided to delve into the Prophetic books of scripture -- he mentioned Daniel, Revelation, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Not long after he started, and feeling lost, he prayed about where to begin and he told us that he received inspiration that he should not concern himself with this line of study, and that he should spend his time with the things he was teaching as a missionary -- the basic principles of the gospel. He continued on to tell us, the members of his ward more than 20 years after this experience, that we did not need to concern ourselves with studying these hard-to-understand books of scripture, but we need only concern ourselves with the simple truths of the gospel.

So........what about "great are the words of Isaiah?" What do we have prophecies about the Last Days for, if not to study and ponder them. The personal revelation he received about a particular moment in his own life cannot possibly apply to every member of a ward 20 years later.

This is similar to what setyourselffree did in applying his experience. Because he felt a dark feeling when one man started using energy healing, he decided that his experience applied to ALL cases of energy healing at ALL times, and for ALL people.

[setyourselffree]

Very good question. I would say you can know by the spirit. Last night I was arguing with a coworker about Joseph Smith, and it got really heated. I was absolutely bashing with him. I felt complete darkness inside and no spirit at all. Once I calmed down and expressed my love to him and told him I was sorry for getting defensive the spirit came back. When bad things happen or are upon you, those who know what the spirit is like would be able to discern. If you are into energy healing and feel the spirit, then I don't think that person understands what the spirit feels like.

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

So, this one personal experience that you have speaks for everyone else and everyone other experience? Isn't that a hasty generalization?

In short, I'm taking issue with how you arrived at your conclusion. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion, I don't think you've made a strong case for it. You are essentially relying on a circular argument to reach your conclusion, which is not persuasive or convincing.

-Finrock

You're right that is my testimony. Just like I can't prove God exists, its personal knowledge and feelings of the Spirit that have to help you with your answer. I told you how I found my answer. I hope your journey is a wonderful experiance that helps you come to a conclusion that energy healing is of the devil. Nobody can convince someone of real truth only the Spirit can.

[setyourselffree]

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

So, this one personal experience that you have speaks for everyone else and everyone other experience? Isn't that a hasty generalization?

In short, I'm taking issue with how you arrived at your conclusion. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion, I don't think you've made a strong case for it. You are essentially relying on a circular argument to reach your conclusion, which is not persuasive or convincing.

-Finrock

My Bishop recently told us about an experience he had on his mission, when he was going to be apartment-bound with a recovering companion. He decided to delve into the Prophetic books of scripture -- he mentioned Daniel, Revelation, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Not long after he started, and feeling lost, he prayed about where to begin and he told us that he received inspiration that he should not concern himself with this line of study, and that he should spend his time with the things he was teaching as a missionary -- the basic principles of the gospel. He continued on to tell us, the members of his ward more than 20 years after this experience, that we did not need to concern ourselves with studying these hard-to-understand books of scripture, but we need only concern ourselves with the simple truths of the gospel.

So........what about "great are the words of Isaiah?" What do we have prophecies about the Last Days for, if not to study and ponder them. The personal revelation he received about a particular moment in his own life cannot possibly apply to every member of a ward 20 years later.

This is similar to what setyourselffree did in applying his experience. Because he felt a dark feeling when one man started using energy healing, he decided that his experience applied to ALL cases of energy healing at ALL times, and for ALL people.

Yep just like I have come to know Jesus Christ is real through my own personal experiance with the Spirit I will apply that to all cases and shout it from the roof tops that he is for everyone.

[oxbloodangel]

I know people who do emotion code and body code stuff. According to that concept, you have to give and receive permission subconsciously for it to work, and sometimes even then it doesn't. However, doing it en masse over the phone is not an effective means of doing that even if you believe in the stuff. Not to mention everyone I know that knows this are horrified at the idea of her doing it for money. It's off.. and it's definitely not striking almost anyone as an ok thing to be doing. It's a lot like charging for priesthood blessings which are also through the Lord, and much more directly so. (assuming a person believes this stuff in the first place.)

Everyone I know who has paid for the schooling and mentorship to acquire energy healing skills charges money and has clients, just like any other alternative healing modality. In the church, we have the idea that we are entitled to other members' gifts; just ask someone who plays the piano well. The law of consecration will be so beautiful when it is truly embraced. Until then, we are all practicing it, even under covenant, imperfectly. My brother, who has multiple degrees in health and wellness, psychology, and a few years of chiropractic school under his belt, asked us a few years ago if it was wrong for him to charge for his service, since he acknowledges that his ability to heal is in essence a spiritual gift. He has 7 children and wants to be able to provide for them. Personally, I wish people were less judgemental about those who are healing outside of hospital medicine. Use your God-given powers of discretion when seeking help for yourself, and otherwise don't worry about what your neighbor is doing. Trust me, he's already conscientious enough for both of you.

My favorite way to use someone else's gifts within the principle of consecration is to trade. We don't currently have the united order. Stop expecting people to starve their families so you can have something free.

[JohnnyL]

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

If you're waiting for the church to reverse its position on "energy healing", you're going to be waiting a very.... very.....very.... long...... time.

Meanwhile, many more members will be exercising their priesthood, inviting others to exercise theirs, and growing stronger and stronger in the faith. I think I know which camp I'd rather be in. ;)

BTW shouldn't we all be in tent cities by now?

I didn't know the church HAD a position on energy healing. Oh wait, someone on the forum has spoken with the general authorities (apostles?), and they are going to come out against it shortly (a few years ago). Oh wait, President Packer was for sure going to come out against it (at least I don't have to keep holding my breath on that one...). Oh wait, Elder Ballard came out against it, and two forum members recorded it, and they are going to put it up really soon now ( :-w :-w :-w ).

You are setting up a false dichotomy, do you see it?

Huh? Tent cities?? You must have me mixed up with someone, sorry.

[JohnnyL]

This from Elder Packer:

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I began teaching seminary under Abel S. Rich, principal. He was the second seminary teacher employed by the Church and a man of maturity, wisdom, and experience. Among the lessons I learned from him was this: when I want to know about a man, I seek out those who know him best. I do not go to his enemies but to his friends. He would not confide in his enemy. You could not know the innermost thoughts of his heart by consulting those who would injure him.

We are teachers and should know the importance of the principle of prerequisites. It is easily illustrated with the subject of chemistry. No responsible chemist would advise, and no reputable school would permit, a beginning student to register for advanced chemistry without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The advanced course would be a destructive mistake, even for a very brilliant beginning student. Even that brilliant student would need some knowledge of the elements, of atoms and molecules, of electrons, of valence, of compounds and properties. To let a student proceed without the knowledge of fundamentals would surely destroy his interest in, and his future with, the field of chemistry.

The same point may be made with reference to so-called sex education. There are many things that are factual, even elevating, about this subject. There are aspects of this subject that are so perverted and ugly it does little good to talk of them at all. They cannot be safely taught to little children or to those who are not eligible by virtue of age or maturity or authorizing ordinance to understand them.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

President William E. Berrett has told us how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings.

This principle of prerequisites is so fundamental to all education that I have never been quite able to understand why historians are so willing to ignore it. And, if those outside the Church have little to guide them but the tenets of their profession, those inside the Church should know better.

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.

He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; / ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands— / But he that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:

“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.

“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

Cool. Thanks for sharing. You've shared this before. Some of it is false doctrine, some of it doesn't apply, and nobody is on a mission to point out the flaws of "great" men.

Apostles and prophets are just men. That is a fact. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong with stating it and acknowledging it.

-Finrock

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

Thanks for again making Pres. Packers overall point in his message to church employees. Any other current or past General Authority you want to dump on while you are at it? By the way who do you think the Brethren were referencing when they released their current statement I will post again below? You dont think this so called Christ Centered Energy Healing craze with all the books and seminars going on spearheaded by people like Tammy Ward and others even crossed their minds?? But its sure nice to know you support the Brethren..

“We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders,” (LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins)

Mark, what do you mean by "I support the brethren"?

What do you mean by "dump on"?

Hmm... Let's see, Mark, I never took you for being dense. Let me post this again:
“We urge Church members to be cautious about participating in any group that promises-in exchange for money-miraculous healings or that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of properly ordained priesthood holders,” (LDS church spokesman Eric Hawkins)

Oh wait, this is what we know they really meant: "Energy healing is wrong. It is a false power that conflicts with the priesthood. In fact, it is a false priesthood from Satan. We encourage all members to stay away from it, in all ways. Those practicing it or being healed by it will not be worthy to attend the temple, and will be disciplined by the church."

Perhaps someone else also sees a difference?

[JohnnyL]

I know people who do emotion code and body code stuff. According to that concept, you have to give and receive permission subconsciously for it to work, and sometimes even then it doesn't. However, doing it en masse over the phone is not an effective means of doing that even if you believe in the stuff. Not to mention everyone I know that knows this are horrified at the idea of her doing it for money. It's off.. and it's definitely not striking almost anyone as an ok thing to be doing. It's a lot like charging for priesthood blessings which are also through the Lord, and much more directly so. (assuming a person believes this stuff in the first place.)

Everyone I know who has paid for the schooling and mentorship to acquire energy healing skills charges money and has clients, just like any other alternative healing modality. In the church, we have the idea that we are entitled to other members' gifts; just ask someone who plays the piano well. The law of consecration will be so beautiful when it is truly embraced. Until then, we are all practicing it, even under covenant, imperfectly. My brother, who has multiple degrees in health and wellness, psychology, and a few years of chiropractic school under his belt, asked us a few years ago if it was wrong for him to charge for his service, since he acknowledges that his ability to heal is in essence a spiritual gift. He has 7 children and wants to be able to provide for them. Personally, I wish people were less judgemental about those who are healing outside of hospital medicine. Use your God-given powers of discretion when seeking help for yourself, and otherwise don't worry about what your neighbor is doing. Trust me, he's already conscientious enough for both of you.

My favorite way to use someone else's gifts within the principle of consecration is to trade. We don't currently have the united order. Stop expecting people to starve their families so you can have something free.

Ha ha, especially love the piano comment.

Yeah, anti-EHers, you think LDS doctors DON'T have the gift of healing? I'm curious to know... <happily waiting>

To repeat what I've said before, and of course not gotten a reply to (wait, there was one woman who did believe it was priestcraft on the music part):
The man who learns a language on a mission, through the gift of the Spirit--is he guilty of priestcraft?
The woman who has the gift of working with children, is she guilty of priestcraft if she becomes a teacher, a nanny, a daycare worker, an NPO that works with children?
The man who has the gift of music and plays the piano in church, is he guilty of priestcraft if he sings outside of church? or plays the piano in an orchestra?
I could go on and on...

Kind of sounds different now, huh?

[JohnnyL]

What justifies your last statement?

-Finrock

So I am 36 years old and I served a mission in the Oklahoma Tulsa Mission. One night I was out tracking in the backwoods of Missouri and we came across a really nice house. We knocked on the door and the gentleman let us in. He told us he was a reformed Mormon and belonged to the restored Church of the tabernacle (there is a ton of break off Mormon Churches throughout Missouri) He have us a copy of the book of Mormon that his Church publishes (same words as ours but chapters run longer). We had a good conversation with him. Then he started to talk about his profession as Chiropractor, and that he also did Christ energy healing. I was intrigued and so he asked if I would like him to demonstrate. I will tell you right now I felt a darkness come over me. Until that point everything was fine, after he did what he did I felt nothing but darkness. So here was a guy who read the Book of Mormon and was overall probably a good guy. He didn't understand what the spirit was and was OK with what he was doing. If he knew what the Spirit feels like I can promise you he would not be practicing, unless he is of the devil then he wouldn't care. So that is what justifies my last statement.

So, this one personal experience that you have speaks for everyone else and everyone other experience? Isn't that a hasty generalization?

In short, I'm taking issue with how you arrived at your conclusion. Even if I were to agree with your conclusion, I don't think you've made a strong case for it. You are essentially relying on a circular argument to reach your conclusion, which is not persuasive or convincing.

-Finrock

My Bishop recently told us about an experience he had on his mission, when he was going to be apartment-bound with a recovering companion. He decided to delve into the Prophetic books of scripture -- he mentioned Daniel, Revelation, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Not long after he started, and feeling lost, he prayed about where to begin and he told us that he received inspiration that he should not concern himself with this line of study, and that he should spend his time with the things he was teaching as a missionary -- the basic principles of the gospel. He continued on to tell us, the members of his ward more than 20 years after this experience, that we did not need to concern ourselves with studying these hard-to-understand books of scripture, but we need only concern ourselves with the simple truths of the gospel.

So........what about "great are the words of Isaiah?" What do we have prophecies about the Last Days for, if not to study and ponder them. The personal revelation he received about a particular moment in his own life cannot possibly apply to every member of a ward 20 years later.

This is similar to what setyourselffree did in applying his experience. Because he felt a dark feeling when one man started using energy healing, he decided that his experience applied to ALL cases of energy healing at ALL times, and for ALL people.

Both of these are great, and hit at a problem in the anti-EH crowd.

I have no problems with someone not being ready for something, not being fit for something, etc., and knowing/ learning that through the Spirit.

I also know it is possible to misunderstand what the spirit is, even to those who believe they are familiar with it, especially when you feel fear. Been there, done that.

I also know people who continue along a chain of questions with the same answer they got to the first question. I have a friend who, he says, the Spirit told him to separate (not live in the same house as) from his wife due to their problems. I could accept that. Then he divorced her, because of that answer. Um, shouldn't you ask about that step?? Nah, he had already gotten his answer. :-\

I also see on this board, daily, people who will do as setyourselffree and Lizzy60's bishop do, with taking an answer from one situation (one time period, one person, one place, etc.) and generalizing it to all situations (all time periods, all people, all places, etc.).

Now, I'm just curious if it was back cracking or EH, or both, that made setyourselffree feel the spirit of darkness? :))

[JohnnyL]

This from Elder Packer:

"Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify.

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops.

Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived.

Someone who was not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.

I began teaching seminary under Abel S. Rich, principal. He was the second seminary teacher employed by the Church and a man of maturity, wisdom, and experience. Among the lessons I learned from him was this: when I want to know about a man, I seek out those who know him best. I do not go to his enemies but to his friends. He would not confide in his enemy. You could not know the innermost thoughts of his heart by consulting those who would injure him.

We are teachers and should know the importance of the principle of prerequisites. It is easily illustrated with the subject of chemistry. No responsible chemist would advise, and no reputable school would permit, a beginning student to register for advanced chemistry without a knowledge of the fundamental principles of chemistry. The advanced course would be a destructive mistake, even for a very brilliant beginning student. Even that brilliant student would need some knowledge of the elements, of atoms and molecules, of electrons, of valence, of compounds and properties. To let a student proceed without the knowledge of fundamentals would surely destroy his interest in, and his future with, the field of chemistry.

The same point may be made with reference to so-called sex education. There are many things that are factual, even elevating, about this subject. There are aspects of this subject that are so perverted and ugly it does little good to talk of them at all. They cannot be safely taught to little children or to those who are not eligible by virtue of age or maturity or authorizing ordinance to understand them.

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.

What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

It matters very much not only what we are told but when we are told it. Be careful that you build faith rather than destroy it.

President William E. Berrett has told us how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings.

This principle of prerequisites is so fundamental to all education that I have never been quite able to understand why historians are so willing to ignore it. And, if those outside the Church have little to guide them but the tenets of their profession, those inside the Church should know better.

Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith.

What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man.

He has taken something away from the memory of a prophet. He has destroyed faith. I remind you of the truth Shakespeare taught, ironically spoken by Iago: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; / ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands— / But he that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed” (Othello, act 3, sc. 3, lines 157–61).

The sad thing is that he may have, in years past, taken great interest in those who led the Church and desired to draw close to them. But instead of following that long, steep, discouraging, and occasionally dangerous path to spiritual achievement, instead of going up to where they were, he devised a way of collecting mistakes and weaknesses and limitations to compare with his own. In that sense he has attempted to bring a historical figure down to his level and in that way feel close to him and perhaps justify his own weaknesses.

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:

“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.

“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If an historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955], p. 155.)

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for “advanced history,” is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.

I recall a conversation with President Henry D. Moyle. We were driving back from Arizona and were talking about a man who destroyed the faith of young people from the vantage point of a teaching position. Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

Cool. Thanks for sharing. You've shared this before. Some of it is false doctrine, some of it doesn't apply, and nobody is on a mission to point out the flaws of "great" men.

Apostles and prophets are just men. That is a fact. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong about it. Nothing evil, bad, or wrong with stating it and acknowledging it.

-Finrock

President Moyle, who almost destroyed the church single-handedly, in strong opposition to President Smith and Elder Lee...
President Packer, who had a statement about homosexuality that the church kind of changed later...
We could go on and on. Funny--since no one on this board thinks it a sin to point out, denegrate, call names, accuse of sin and wrongdoing, etc. others they disagree with (especially on every energy healing thread, right?), it seems just a tad hypocritical to take this stance, Artificial and Mark.

Now, they are just men. But, they do have callings, and even if they do have faults (which they do), I respect that and them and support them.

No, they were not 'just men' and you pay lip service to 'respecting' or 'supporting' them. Thoughts of whited sepulches filled with dead men's bones come to mind... You use your efforts to diminish and besmirch them and then pretend that's not exactly what you are doing--and we're supposed to ignore it?

The lengths you will go to to defend what you have embraced and want others to embrace, even though the church has cautioned against it.

You don't believe they were just men, but were whited sepulchers...? Then I will have to disagree with you. Not necessarily, but also not the first time, of course.

[JohnnyL]

The brain and mind can be a powerful thing. Is why subjects that are given placebos in medical studies are cured along with the ones given the real thing. These energy healers give a wonderful "pep talk"( I assume this is what happens, not much more you can over the phone) to their subjects and the people come out feeling wonderful and "cured". I dont believe and never will that there is any spirit involved or any angels involved, good or evil. I dont understand why even skeptics cannot understand this. There always has to be a spirit involved whether good or bad. Why cant it not be what it is, simply a person giving a pep talk to another person. The energy healers prey on the "more spiritual" (because they believe in a God and Angels) and claim angels help them and they have gifts from God, it is simply a ploy to sound more authentic. The real tragedy that they cannot see is it is leading them down a very dangerous path and a path that will condemn them. These people that think they are so spiritual and righteous and take part in this type thing are too ignorant to see what fools they make themselves look.

Gage, go for it!! Give someone a pep talk and heal them of a phobia, for example. Let me know how it goes. ;)

As to one thing you wrote, you might be right...

[Mcox]

"Oh wait, this is what we know they really meant: "Energy healing is wrong. It is a false power that conflicts with the priesthood. In fact, it is a false priesthood from Satan. We encourage all members to stay away from it, in all ways. Those practicing it or being healed by it will not be worthy to attend the temple, and will be disciplined by the church."


Now you're getting it!

[EmmaLee]

I've always wondered this about Julie Rowe, as well. She's been a patient and a practitioner of energy healing for several years now, Bradley ('Body Code') Nelson even working on her himself - but she still claims to be sick and suffering physically in most of her interviews, etc. :-\

Matt Walsh - "This ticked me off. I was watching TV and this commercial comes on advertising "miracle water" that comes from God and can cure cancer and poverty. I knew I was in for some heretical horse manure straight from Satan the moment the commercial began by telling us that "God wants us to be prosperous." Cut to a bunch of people claiming they drank this miracle water and next thing you know they were healed of their afflictions and getting promotions at work.

It's easy to laugh at this kind of stuff, but there are actual people sitting at home who are led into falsehood and apostasy because they really want to believe that some dude named Peter Popoff has miraculous ointment. Oh, and the first vial is free! I mean, I don't know why you even need a second vial if the first already solved your problems, but we'll put that to the side.

There are some truly demonic people out there exploiting the most gullible and ignorant of the flock for personal gain. I hope they enjoy their meager profits today because soon they're going to have to pay the piper. And I doubt that even this miracle water can save their butts when that time comes." ~ Matt Walsh

18664472_1564402186926219_6210457978081495552_n.jpg (79.03 KiB) Viewed 1786 times

[Finrock]

I've always wondered this about Julie Rowe, as well. She's been a patient and a practitioner of energy healing for several years now, Bradley ('Body Code') Nelson even working on her himself - but she still claims to be sick and suffering physically in most of her interviews, etc. :-\

I hear you, but the same can be said about people who've received priesthood blessings. I think something else is going on besides "energy healing is evil and of the devil".

There are some truly demonic people out there exploiting the most gullible and ignorant of the flock for personal gain. I hope they enjoy their meager profits today because soon they're going to have to pay the piper. And I doubt that even this miracle water can save their butts when that time comes." ~ Matt Walsh18664472_1564402186926219_6210457978081495552_n.jpg

I agree, but this tells us precisely nothing about "energy healing."

I'm looking for anyone to provide some argument against Energy Healing that isn't circular, doesn't special plead, or isn't a hasty generalization. So far, everything said against Energy Healing boils down to sociocentric biases.

As a reminder, I'm not an advocate for energy healing, I've never participated, and my bias right now is to be skeptical of it or cautious about it.

-Finrock