Why doesn’t God heal amputees?

Think about that question for a minute. No, I mean, REALLY think about it. Think about the implications it has. There’s a website dedicated to this question.

Now for the Mormon spin on this question. Supposedly the power of the Priesthood gives one the ability to heal or give comfort to others using a special blessing. This is usually accompanied with an anointing of consecrated oil when dealing with an illness. Based on the faith promoting stories and anecdotes from friends and family, Priesthood blessings work for things like, say, depression, or a cold, a fever, occasionally cancer, some other kind of sickness.

But I've never seen priesthood bring back hair, limbs, or digits. I often wondered, why don’t blessings heal burn victims’ skin? (ask Mormon Peter Jeppson, whose story I heard as a kid during a trip to Utah) Apparently it works well enough to cure the common cold. But the main problem is that there isn't any way of determining how much the blessing did, how much the medicine did, how much the person’s immune system did, and how much was just the placebo effect.


When the blessing doesn't work, it is one of several things: not enough faith on the part of the sick person, not enough faith on the part of the priesthood holder, or perhaps it’s just that this particular virus was meant to be a trial given from god, so it isn't supposed to be healed. Either way, credit is given to God and the person’s faith is strengthened. Likewise, when a blessing is given to someone about to undergo surgery, often a blessing is given that the surgeon’s hands will be steady, and that everything will go well. When everything comes out just fine, God is given the credit.

Here’s a great song that sums this problem up pretty well.

My brother is an amputee, having had his thumb cut off just below the nail. I would love it if his thumb were to grow back. It saddens me to think that something he once had is gone, especially something as useful as an opposable digit.

I am also an amputee of sorts. Just after I was born, I guess my parents decided that something was wrong with my genitalia and had parts of it permanently cut off.  So let me just put in a plug here for NOHARMM and NOCIRC.

[As a side note, I find it odd that when America (as a whole) learned about Female Genital Mutilation going on in Africa from the Oprah show, people were outraged and it wasn't long before it was made illegal (1997). But an equivalent practice has been going on in this country for over a century and nobody bats an eye. I realize that what happened to me was less severe than what generally happens to girls in Africa, but the point is that the results are similar: surgery done on my genitals without my consent and no good medical reason to do so.]

If I knew that a priesthood blessing would get me back my foreskin (or my brother’s thumb), I would do it in a heartbeat, and would consider it proof that the Mormon Priesthood actually worked, which in turn would be incredibly strong evidence that they really do have the power of God, which would go far in proving the LDS church to be God’s kingdom on earth. Unfortunately, it just isn't so.

And again, isn't it odd that it only works on things that can’t be completely verified independently? Something that is easily visible and completely unambiguous would be growing back an amputated limb. In other words, something that can't be done by the normal human immune system. Having this happen would be miraculous, and having it happen multiple times to people who all happen to be of one particular faith would really show something. If medical journals were filled with tale after tale of Mormons who overcame cancer suddenly, grew back limbs, or suddenly didn't need dialysis anymore. I suspect it would be something like this clip from Star Trek 4.

But the reality is that it’s not like that. Plenty of other religions have their own faith-promoting stories about miraculous healings.

So the miracle healing thing is not unique to Mormonism. It doesn't require the Priesthood, nor the consecrated oil; just simple luck and a placebo given by a good showman often does the trick. And when that doesn't work, a plant in the audience will suffice for these charlatans.

My point is that there are plenty of other explanations for these types of things. Perhaps the doctor misdiagnosed the original condition. There have been cases of spontaneous remission for no known medical reason.

Meanwhile, modern medicine has been hard at work curing us and preventing things like polio, and tuberculosis. Broken leg bones are set so that the person won’t have a permanent limp like what used to be commonplace. New technologies use synthetic skin to treat burn victims. My daughter has had the lenses in her eyes replaced because of cataracts. Science and modern technology has even been able to give amputees their limbs back. In fact, they've gotten so good that a double amputee was banned from competing in the Olympics (until recently) because his prosthetic legs might have given him some kind of mechanical advantage!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: “The Priesthood being on earth is what’s inspiring the doctors/scientists to do these things!” To which I reply, “Then why weren't these available back in Moses’ day, or Jesus’ day?” And do you have proof that this is the case and not just a coincidence that medical technologies have improved at the same time a small religious movement occurred? Can you independently verify that these advances would not have been made without the “restored Priesthood” on the earth?

Like I said in the post about the scientific method, I would expect that if the priesthood’s healing abilities really worked as well as they’re supposed to, Mormons would have significantly lowered medical costs. They wouldn't have to pay for insurance since the magic oil would be much cheaper and just as effective.  I wonder why more Mormons aren't using Priesthood blessings to cure diabetes, thyroid problems, amputations, and autism regularly. But they aren't, and I think it’s a reflection on the fact that they know it won’t work. I would love to be proven wrong on this point, but I’m not holding my breath. I think I'll let modern technology and doctors do God's job. From what I've seen, it's got a better track record.

Stake President Response Part 5

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Here is the audio clip for part 5, and here is its transcript.

There’s a scientific principle called Occam’s Razor which states that all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So I ask, which is simpler:
A) that 2 entire huge civilizations were wiped off the face of the earth and God conveniently cleared out all evidence of it so we could have faith, or
B) that they didn't exist in the first place?

But he doubles down telling everyone not to go chasing after (non-existent) evidence. You should get your answer from the feelings you get when you pray, and if you get the wrong answer you’ll be in the dark. And if you don’t ask with real intent, you’ll get the wrong answer. He makes is seem like if you don’t get a definite ‘yes,’ then there’s something wrong with you (this is an extremely common thing in the church and other cults), either because you’re sinning or just not praying hard enough. But keep at it and eventually you’ll get the right answer. It’s called the double-bind, and it's used all the time by religious and political leaders.

Then he brings forth the excuse that if God were to actually answer you with hard proof, it would be worse off for you because then you couldn't screw up. See? It’s just God being merciful that he doesn't give you answers. It’s almost like what some of the church members say about God being “merciful” to black members – since they can’t hold the priesthood, they’re not under as much condemnation if they turn away from the church. Not to beat a dead horse, but what would your reaction be to a DA who says, "Because I love you so much, I'm not going to show you any evidence of the crime we are accusing this person of. Don't you feel special now?"

After he turns the water works on for a bit and implies that you'll get the "wrong" answer if you sin, he reads some words of Jeffery R. Holland, and then says that we need not be afraid of any truth wherever it comes from. However, what he neglects to mention is that if that truth contradicts the conclusion that the church is true, then we reject it. Here’s the difference between science and religion: Science adjusts its views based on what is observed, while religion is the denial of observation so the belief can be preserved (brief language warning on the clip).

Then he draws the proverbial line in the sand: will you be sheep or goats? This, of course, refers to a passage in Matthew 25 after the Prodigal Son parable. The analogy is not without its merit. Sheep are herd animals that follow without questioning or thinking. People who do this are called "Sheeple," and religions and dictators love this. It's how you convince people to fly planes into buildings, or blow up subways, or mass murder Jews, or even something as silly as convince followers you sank 11 holes-in-one the first time you played golf. But it's seen as a good thing for people to be blindly obedient within the church. They wouldn't want you to use the brain God gave you to think for yourself, now, would they?

Then, President Beech finally gets to the thing that probably inspired this meeting in the first place: our resignation. He says it’s easy to leave the church, and that you can do it on the back of an envelope. While it's true that one can do it on an envelope, the part about being "easy" is blatantly false, as any one of the ex-mormons we know will tell you. Some have had bishops refuse to process the paperwork. Others have had to send it via registered mail multiple times before it was acknowledged as received. Still another found out that years after formally leaving the church, the ward clerk was still able to pull up every bit of information they had. I realize that in some of the cases, paperwork is misfiled and some things fall through the cracks, but there are many, many stories like this.

Any other non-culty organization lets you go once you state your intent to resign (for example, I resigned from my Boy Scout Roundtable position in 5 minutes when I let them know that my work schedule changed and would be conflicting). But the LDS church makes you wait 30 days and requires a meeting with a local official, and they try to get you to change your mind by sending you a pamphlet in the mail. Perhaps I’ll write a blog post on that, but not today. But I would state that if that’s all that it takes, why did he have to come to my house to get some missing signatures? (discussed in the Introduction)

Now, here’s something that is interesting. The Stake President tells how hard it must be to live in our community (Ogden) and not be a member of the church. He encourages the audience to be friendly and not ostracize. Friends of ours who listened/read what he said took it as a passive-aggressive way of saying, “If you leave, it’s going to be hard,” in order to “scare them straight.”

But we didn't take it that way. Because of how we know him, we think he’s being sincere in his plea to not

shun us. However, that hasn't stopped some of them from unfriending Anne on Facebook, which is actually one of the reasons she was inspired to start this blog. I wouldn't say that we have been shunned other than that, but what we realized is how shallow our relationships with the ward members were. It is almost like having “work friends” that you socialize with because you happen to be in the same place at the same time, but once you change jobs you don’t think about them anymore because the one thing you had in common is now gone. I also think that running into some former ward members at the gym or grocery store has been a little awkward for them. A few seemed uneasy about saying hi or waving for some reason. Others have been totally fine almost like nothing happened. Those kind are more fun.

Anyway, that brings this six-part series to a close. I sincerely wish to hear any thoughts you readers have about what I said OR what the Stake President said, be it praise or criticism. I want to hear what you think ESPECIALLY if it is criticism, from grammatical/spelling typos to ambiguous sentences to errors in logic and reasoning to snarkiness.

Thank you for reading this. It has been cleansing to finally get this out of my system.

(Authored by Joseph)

Stake President Response Part 4

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Here is the audio clip for part 4, and here is its transcript.

For what it's worth, Joseph Smith was not convicted of being a peeping tom, but for being a "glass-looker."

Anyway, the Stake President now introduces Einstein into the equation. Thankfully he didn’t appeal to Einstein’s authority. But he proposes several “gedanken,” or thought experiments. It’s really one big thought experiment with about 5 premises. But anyway, we’re back to the court case thing where we have evidence and witnesses. He calls forth archaeological proof that Lehi et al. existed, the artifacts Moroni buried (various plates, sword, liahona, etc.), the 3 Witnesses, and finally Nephi and Moroni themselves. Let’s take each one individually.

Proof of existance

If we had absolute proof that Lehi and company existed, it would certainly strengthen the argument that the Book of Mormon record is true. The city of Troy an example from actual archaeology. It was thought to be a mythical city made up as part of the tale in the Iliad by Homer. However, in 1868 the ruins of Troy were found, and all of a sudden the legends and references to Troy were cast in a new light. Suppose we were to find a cave in modern day Saudi Arabia where someone had carved into the wall, “Lamen and Lemuel were here, but not our stupid brother Nephi,” and it could be reliably dated to around 600 BC, then that would certainly strengthen the argument.

To compare, nobody argues that Ramses II or Alexander the Great didn't exist because of the plethora of artifacts and accounts of them. But no such evidence of Lehi and crew has been found. No one has found evidence of large battlefields in North, Central, or South America where the combatants used steel swords and armor. Ever. Of course, there’s always the possibility that we just haven’t found it yet (like Troy), but since we haven’t found any evidence that any Native American civilization knew how to make steel I’m not going to hold my breath.

Steel isn't the only problem, by the way. The BoM mentions that horses, chariots, cattle, oxen, donkeys, goats, wild goats, swine, elephants, coins, barley, and wheat were present on the American continent before Europeans brought them. But that’s for another day.

The Plates and the artifacts

If we had the plates themselves, we could examine them. We could see how different the “Reformed Egyptian” was from “regular” Egyptian (there were several varieties). We could have them tested to see of what metal they were made, see how thick they were, how heavy they were, etc. It would go a long way to proving that Joseph Smith’s story was not just hokum. There is always the possibility that Joseph Smith could have manufactured the plates and artifacts himself, or had someone make them for him, but even then they could be tested for dating to show one way or another if they were made in the 19th century by modern metallurgists.

To use a kids’ show as an example, for years and years Big Bird from Sesame Street told everyone about his friend Snuffleupagus but he always disappeared so nobody ever saw him, and assumed Big Bird just had an imaginary friend. But finally in 1985 Snuffy was introduced to the adults, and from then on they believed Big Bird. Likewise, having the actual plates would go a long way to making JS’s story more credible.


The Three Witnesses

I agree with the SP in that calling the Three Witnesses to the stand would be quite interesting. What most members of the church know is that their testimony has been included in every copy of the BoM ever printed. Everyone also knows that all three left the church at some point, but that they never denied their testimony about seeing the plates, which somehow makes it OK. The problem is that this makes them out to look rather petty because they would jeopardize their eternal salvation over some disagreements between colleagues. But also, just because someone never denies something does not automatically make it true. There are people who go to their grave never denying that they were abducted by aliens and had experiments performed on them. Based on what the church says about the 3 Witnesses, we should give the abductees equal credibility since they never denied it.

But if this were a real court case, and we are expected to believe what they saw, we should probably uncover some of the details about them. From a cursory reading of the original Book of Commandments, it appears as if Oliver Cowdery believed in divining rods. Martin Harris told another gentleman “while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another.” David Whitmer is quoted several times (in Ensign articles, no less) that the translation involved a rock placed in Joseph’s hat, yet in all my years of seeing gospel art I have never once seen this depicted (this is discussed in detail in an earlier blog post).

Mormon historian Marvin S. Hill discusses the controversies surrounding the witness’s testimonies in his review of Fawn McKay Brodie’s classic book titled No Man Knows My History. In his article “Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal,” published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Hill states;

“What of the prophet's story about gold plates, and what about his witnesses? Given Brodie's assumptions, was there not deception here, if not collusion? Brodie maintains that the Prophet exercised some mysterious influence upon the witnesses which caused them to see the plates, thus making Joseph Smith once more the perpetrator of a religious fraud. The evidence is extremely contradictory in this area, but there is a possibility that the three witnesses saw the plates in vision only, for Stephen Burnett in a letter written in 1838, a few weeks after the event, described Martin Harris' testimony to this effect: ‘When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David . . . the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations.’”

Hill goes on to note:

“Burnett reported Harris saying that he had ‘hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain.’ Nonetheless, Harris said he believed the Book of Mormon to be true. In the revelation given the three witnesses before they viewed the plates they were told, ‘it is by your faith that you shall view them’ and ‘ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith Jr. has seen them, for it is by my power that he has seen them.’ There is testimony from several independent interviewers, all non-Mormon, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their ‘spiritual eyes’ only. Among others, A. Metcalf and John Gilbert, as well as Reuben P. Harmon and Jesse Townsend, gave testimonies to this effect. This is contradicted, however, by statements like that of David Whitmer in the Saints Herald in 1882, ‘these hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel.’ But Z. H. Gurley elicited from Whitmer a not so positive response to the question, ‘did you touch them?’ His answer was, ‘We did not touch nor handle the plates.’” (Dialogue, Vol.7, No.4, pp.83-84).

Isn't it odd that these pieces of information about the three witnesses are not included in the church manuals?

Calling Nephi and Moroni to the stand

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. The circular logic is thick here. In order to prove the book is true, he calls a character from the book. Let me paint you an analogy:
J.R.R. Tolkien asserts that the records he translated from the Red Book of Westmarch is the true history of this planet and was the source for the Lord of the Rings.

In order to prove that the information in the book is legit, a court case is held and the defense calls to the stand Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. They are, after all, the principal authors of the Red Book. They could testify to the finding of the One Ring of Power, the Scouring of the Shire, etc. Doesn't it seem silly? Obviously Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. But while Tolkien is claiming it to be history with his tongue firmly in his cheek, Smith and the LDS church are unabashedly claiming actual, factual history.

So maybe I’ll put it this way that’s perhaps a bit more applicable to something we saw several years ago (oddly enough, involving a member of the Mormon faith). Let’s say that Manti Te’o were to write an autobiography in which he recounts in detail his relationship with Lennay Kekua. It’s a nice story but someone is challenging the authenticity of it, so they hold a court hearing. They call to the stand Manti himself, along with members of his family and friends from Notre Dame to tell about what they observed between Manti and Lennay. They heard stories and saw him talking on the phone to her, but never met her in person, so the question of whether she actually exists arises. Who would be the one person that could settle everything swiftly? Lennay Kekua. If she were to show up and verify everything, court is adjourned. Unfortunately, she is unable to come testify because she doesn't exist. But we could verify whether she exists by other means, such as birth records, DMV records, hospital records, etc. In fact, Deadspin.com took the initiative to do this research and came up with nothing, and that’s when the proverbial crap hit the fan.

Anyway, back to the kangaroo court. In an unseen twist, the Stake President pulls this out: even if we have evidence, all we have is a record, and it doesn't prove a thing. Coincidentally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are in town at the Leonardo Museum. I’d love to hear what he thinks about those. After all, it’s just a record. It doesn't prove that people ever existed, or events happened. It’s just a record. I agree that a record does not necessarily indicate exactly what happened (think of all the shady accounting records and cooked books there have been). But if those records have some corroborating evidence, that's a different story.

In fact we do have a "record" that Joseph Smith "translated" which still exists. It's called the Kinderhook Plates. They were a set of small, bell-shaped metal plates manufactured by a contemporary of Smith. When shown to him, Smith said that they were of Jaredite origin and gave some additional details. The LDS church maintained they were real for quite some time. Later they were found by modern science to be a hoax. So here's a record, but we don't believe it because of the lack of corroborating evidence.


What he’s setting the audience up for in a little bit, is that they shouldn't want or need evidence to believe – just the good feelings we get. He doesn't want them finding out that there is a stunning lack of physical evidence for any of the church’s major claims (no church official does). Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you imagine a defense lawyer arguing in court that the jury should just ignore all physical evidence that convicts his client (or on the flip side, a DA telling the jury to ignore the complete lack of evidence against the defendant)? That, my friend, does not make sense.

Moving on with the court analogy, the SP decides to let the opposition call witnesses, so he calls Lamen, Lemuel, Amalakiah, and Ammoron. Again, this is like saying, “The prosecution calls to the stand Saruman the White, Smeagol/Gollum, and Sauron to testify against the Bagginses.” But back in reality, if he’s calling Truman Madsen, Hugh Nibley, and the like, the other side should be calling Simon Southerton, other DNA experts, other archaeologists, etc., not characters from the book.

Then he claims that just because we don’t have these kinds of hard evidences, it can’t disprove the BoM, and even if we did it won’t prove anything either way. But you can bet your bippy that the second they find a huge pit where thousands of people buried their weapons and armor to promote peace, they’ll be touting it around to everyone saying “toldja so.” So he does his Jedi mind trick: “These aren't the artifacts you’re looking for,” and says you have to get your answer from God. The thing is, we have evidence and artifacts from all kinds of human civilizations (except the fictional ones).

Finally we end with the obligatory threat that if one doesn't accept the words of the BoM, one will perish.


(Authored by Joseph)

Concluded in Part 5