Leaderboard

1. Did He chemically alter the properties of the mud He made with His spittle and used to heal a blind man? I don’t now that it’s right to say that there was an element of theater in many of Jesus’s healings (or other actions); but . . . there were certainly elements whose value lay in their symbolism or ritual meaning rather than their mechanical effectiveness. And He meets people at their own level. What would the effect have been if He had said “young man, I hereby diagnose you with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder with dissociative symptoms, and accordingly change your brain structure and neurochemical levels to mirror what they would look like as though you had undergone a twelve-month course of EMDR therapy”? 2. Completely agree!

I think we agree. But I believe the bounds of that power are actually fairly explicit and nowhere near as unknown as some suggest. I won't go into details, because I never know what should and should not actually be discussed (beyond that which I know should not be discussed)...but.... Consider the various teaching in the temple on these things. Perhaps we are more susceptible to the powers of Satan before making covenants. Making covenants is, in part, specifically to protect us from Satan.

It definitely can be both... I was just about to share an experience. But I'm trying to avoid talking about them per counsel we've received about the topic.

OK. I see your point. That's something to think about. But if so, that would mean that Mary Magdalene could have only had some other ailment rather than actually being possessed as we think of it. YES! I brought it back to the original topic!!!!

Woohoo! I'm twice the person zil ever was!

Which is why I say that I (and, IMO, pretty much everyone else) don't understand exactly what is meant by "demonic possession". To really understand the subject, we would need to be familiar with the mechanics of spiritual/physical interactions, things like how thoughts engendered by biochemical and biophysical brain activity relates to spiritual thought—or indeed, what the phrase "spiritual thought" might actually mean. This is one of those times when having a term, like "possession" or "ADHD" or "autism" or "love", makes us think we understand something far more than we actually do.

Right. I just struggle with that because of all the teaching we do have about protecting ourselves from Satan...you know...putting on the whole armor of God, etc. But it's all secretly meaningless? We're constantly taught how to protect ourselves, and the ideas you're proposing as potential via the questioning require the consideration that such teachings aren't actually meaningful. I just can't quite get on board with that, even at the level of questioning it. I firmly believe that putting on the whole armor of God protects us. It's really that simple for me.

Let us be clear on this point. It is important for a man to do his duty. Full-time missionary service is today a duty of Melchizedek Priesthood holders of the appropriate age (young adult). The man who is capable of full-time missionary service and who serves a mission is fulfilling, at least in part, his Priesthood duty. The man who is capable of full-time missionary service but who does not serve a mission is shirking this particular Priesthood duty. The act of serving a full-time mission can do great good for the spirit of the man who serves, and he in turn might do great good to those he serves. These are both wonderful things, maybe even miraculous. But it is the act of service, the willingness to obey and conform to what is required, the humility and determination to serve God and obey him despite the consequences, that is important. The missionary service per se may or may not be important. In the long run, the man who serves a full-time mission and then abandons his covenants will surely be damned if he does not repent. The man who refuses to do his Priesthood duty by serving a full-time mission but repents and dedicates himself fully to serving God and being obedient to God's word will surely gain all that the Father has to give him. So the bare fact that this man did not serve a full-time mission is, in itself, merely a data point—perhaps an important one, but still, just a data point. Vastly more concerning to my fatherly ears is that he does not want to participate in the kingdom of God or participate in temple ordinance work. He allows his shyness or hurt feelings or introverted nature or preoccupation with gaming or peer pressure or something else to deter him from performing a simple, straightforward duty: Attend his Church meetings and worship with the Saints. Yes, I call it a huge red flag. But if such things are not important to you, then it really doesn't make much difference.

One thing perhaps worth bearing in mind is that at that point in time and in that particular culture, pretty much *any* unexplained illness might be colloquially explained as originating with some form of “demonic possession”. Actual demonic possession is certainly a thing—we have documented experiences with it in this dispensation (more on that below). But I don’t know that it’s fair of me to expect John Mark (or Peter, who was apparently his source) to know the etiological difference between demonic possession and an epileptic seizure. Yeah, Joseph still had “free will” during this encounter with Satan; whereas (for example) the Saints present during the 1831 prayer meeting at Father Morley’s home (recounted separately by Zebedee Coltrin and Levi Hancock) seem to have had their very agency swallowed up by whatever was possessing them.

I would agree on that point. But it is interesting to consider how the mechanism actually worked on Joseph. I don't think we know. That leaves us with speculation. Nothing certain. I doubt it is "easy" except for a willing participant. With Joseph, the "actual being from the unseen world" did not succeed partially because Joseph was fighting this being. And Joseph felt "delivered." Is there some protection? I'm sure there is. How much? I don't think we know. And I think it is arrogant to believe that we do know. So very little is revealed on the subject. How righteous is righteous?

Really, if Satan and his minions could just possess whomever, easily, regardless of the individual's agency or degree of righteousness, why on earth are we not all possessed except those special "some" who get protected? I cannot believe Satan or his "angels" wouldn't jump at the opportunity, nor do I believe that the vast majority of the Saints are possessed.

I don't think that was possession, that was Satan's presence and influence externally.

Why do yo believe this? Can you back up this idea with any teachings or scripture? Because I believe, if one were to look into it, that it would be pretty easy to back up the idea that anyone who is righteous would be immune to possession. But backing up the idea that, you know...say...President Nelson could be walking along and all of a sudden...whammo... Mephistopheles is now running the church.... I mean come on. (Edit: I realize you said "some" are afforded protection, and certainly included the prophet in this. But why would it only be some?) Yeah...I know...I used a silly example. But the principle seems to apply across the board. We are promised safety in obedience...again and again and again. We are protected from Satan and his influence by adherence to faith to and obedience in Christ. We open ourselves to the influence of Satan by disobedience to and disregard for Christ. I think finding such teachings would be pretty easy. I think one might find a few obscure anecdotes of people being possessed even though they were being righteous...but they would only be that...stories. Stories that didn't align with known doctrinal principles to my understanding.

I wouldn’t say the charges of harlotry are completely baseless. She was obviously spiritually disturbed. “Out of whom went seven devils” means that Jesus cast seven demons out of her. That only happens to those who are far removed from the spirit. That being said, because Jesus healed her, she regained the opportunity to become an “unusually virtuous person.” Her past didn’t matter anymore, as she made a firm decision to become a disciple of Christ.

This is why we need arranger marriages.

Thanks zil2, I don’t know what the future holds but thankfully I know Who holds the future and I’m committed to sticking around until He calls me home. ✨ I liked your point about choosing Christ often paradoxically leading to encountering more darkness/temptation but having an increased capacity to overcome it. Gels with my personal experience and observations of others’ experiences.

Certainly, if one doesn't know there is an enemy, or one hasn't been taught how to fight against that enemy, then one is more vulnerable. That makes perfect sense to me. It also makes sense to me that choosing, e.g. against the Light of Christ, something you know is less / worse / not good, will increase your risk, while choosing better will decrease it (not the risk of attack - quite the opposite - but your risk of being overcome). I've always thought this bit in Moses 1:20 was revealing (emphasis mine): I believe some of Satan's power comes when we fear him - it suggests, in a sense, having faith in his ability to harm us - after all, if we didn't believe it, why would we fear? If we can overcome that fear - e.g. by turning to God, remembering His power - then Satan loses his power over us. Sounds simplistic, but I believe there's something in there, even if I can't express it well.

In the New Testament physical illness and demonic possession are often correlated, and physical healing and casting out demons is often associated. Having suffered from brain illness/mental illness/neural inflammation…and having experienced extreme darkness even on my mission as a result…I believe our physical bodies are not just vessels for our spirits if the “front door is unlocked” by illness or other biological defect. Mary could have been one of those unfortunates born with a biological condition or later developing a biological condition that allowed evil spirits greater access to her. This is what I suspect anyway, and if a homeless man walked up to me and banished the darkness inside that often threatens to drown me, you’d better believe I’d be his disciple forever after.

I'm rethinking my position as I consider the pig episode from Mark 5.

I'd had the same thought. Luke states: And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And then in Mark we get: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. That's about all we get on the matter. It could very well simply represent physical maladies she had that were cured that had nothing to do with righteousness. Seven maybe. Perhaps bi-polar, schizophrenia, headachey, grumpy, sneezy, sleepy and bashful. That, of course, doesn't account for the possessed man where the evil spirits knew Jesus, named himself Legion (edit: I meant themselves. His pronouns are they/them. Literally this time.), begged to be sent to and then entered the body of 2000 pigs.

Latter Day Saints don’t have any special understand, insight, or doctrine concerning demonic possession. I have never had any spiritual confirmation while studying any topic on Satan or demonic possession. The Holy Ghost testifies of Jesus Christ. I have no idea concerning Mary Magdalene’s lifestyle prior to becoming one of Jesus Christ’s most fervent disciples. Nor do I care. The depiction of Mary on the Chosen did not offend me. The fact that Jesus cared for and spent time teaching Mary shows that He loved her as a daughter. Christ’s love, power, and authority can redeem any who are willing to follow. I don’t have time to be judging others. Taking care of myself and my family keeps me plenty busy.

I realized as I pondered on this that it seems to be backed by scripture: Mosiah 4:14-15 And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the devil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.

Children can murder, but we do not hold them to account for it. Children can knowingly lie and cheat and steal and beat up smaller children and even sexually abuse others, and in all cases we do not hold them to account for their actions. That is what it means to be below the age of accountability. But the point is, accountable or not, children can do such things. It is not obvious to me that children cannot choose to harbor evil spirits in the same way they can choose to harbor evil thoughts.

We have no idea what "of a child" means - at least, I don't. Pre-accountability, sure, the kid's not held responsible. Post-accountability...

1. Agree. 2. Yep. 3. See Joseph Smith's first vision experience already cited. It appears that there are powers we mortals do not understand. Perhaps we understood them as spirits, and thus Satan and his followers still have control of those powers that we here do not understand. And no, I'm not envisioning demon fingers in my brain. (But I'm betting if you opened a restaurant and had demon fingers with hot sauce on the menu, they'd be very popular. See #2.) As to, "if they could, why not do it more" - it goes back to what I said about possession: perhaps it's not easy, perhaps we have ways of protecting ourselves, perhaps there are bounds - see D&C 122:9. And remember, I'm open to the idea that it was a dream intended to teach me something. I'm also open to the idea that I had these experiences at spiritual low points - I've never recorded when they happened, let alone my spiritual state preceding them... 4. Well, it was more figurative "keep away" - that is, do your best to do those things which invite the Holy Ghost into your life and which would act as protection against evil spirits: keep covenants, etc. Dedicating your home sounds like a good idea. IMO, the way one becomes possessed is likely a gradual process of giving in to evil influences, then inviting them increasingly until you basically say, "OK, Satan, you're in charge, just tell me what to do." Perhaps there are exceptions to this, I don't know, but that seems the most likely sequence. Unlike you, I have no problem with the idea of a spirit basically latching on to a person like a leech (not literally the way a leech does) - occupying the same space as the person's body, or following them around, or whatever other mechanism. I don't consider the "come out of him" type references in scripture as necessarily figurative (or flat-out wrong) - though I concede they could be. 5. I think it likely that Satan, et al, take advantage of our failings. When I hear examples like you gave, I assume people are joking. I do think Satan and his kind have the ability to suggest, for lack of any better word, and entice. That doesn't mean every sin we commit was (only) because we were enticed - were that so, we might be able to claim entrapment. That said, I also think that sometimes the smallest thing (like going to church on a specific day) can have an impact orders of magnitude greater than one would expect, and if Satan can figure that out ahead of time, I can easily imagine him doing whatever he's allowed to do to stop that smallest thing. And yes, we're running into one of the problems with mortal language - using "evil" in multiple ways. At the foundation, I think "evil" is simply an option available to all who have agency. I don't think there is a force / energy / being out there that is the "source of evil". It's just an option. I doubt we're all that far off in our thinking, but perhaps I attribute stronger ability to Satan and his followers. I don't know where their bounds are, but it seems a mistake to underestimate the enemy...

Why can't it be both? Perhaps mental illness can make one more susceptible to the influence of or possession by evil spirits. Also, children can choose evil, and one who persists, might invite the increasing influence of an evil spirit. In short, I'm not ruling out any of the possibilities that seem reasonable to me as to how a child came to be possessed.

IRL, I'm something of a hoss. I'd be well north of 6 feet tall if not for the scoliosis in my back (I might have even lost an inch or two), you can tell I have German ancestry, I'm built like a bear, and I have a considerable amount of dark body hair. My deformed jaw also means that I typically have a "neutral" expression on my face because it's physically painful to smile for extended periods. I can literally just *stand* somewhere and make people nervous because of my size and appearance. Back when I was in high school I actually had a random nobody come up to me one morning and ask if I was an undercover cop simply because I looked older and more hardcore than I really was. Even today people are careful about saying or doing anything right in front of me because they aren't quite able to get a read on me, and all that psy ops training means that if I ever had to I could game people as needed so long as the negative aspects of my autism don't kick in.

FWIW, I actually do (arrogantly) believe I understand what possession is. But I also admit that my believing I understand it doesn't actually mean I understand it. That being said, I don't think it means what most people think it means. I also think it's FAR more common than most people believe. Hollywood has, for the most part, corrupted any potential people have of actually understanding the concept, I believe. They see it as a literal spirit stepping into a person's body and taking it over as if it's a meat puppet. I'll admit, the biblical descriptions of it don't help in that regard. But I don't think that has anything to do with what possession actually is, nor do I believe that has ever actually happened or is even possible. Once again....my beliefs, but think a lot of the scriptural descriptions of possession as allegorical (at least partially) more than literal. I also see it as a general state rather than a specific, concrete thing (which is why I claim to understand it...because I see it as a concept rather than "demon literally entered into his body and controls his brain and muscles now"). It means being under the strong influence of something or someone. The how (biochemistry, brain activity, etc.) might vary. I could expand an awful lot on my ideas...and, I'm not sure I've even fully fleshed them out. so I'll leave it at that. But I dunno...just thought I'd share.

HEAR! HEAR! (IOW: AUDITE! AUDITE!)

Thank you. I knew there was a term for it, I just couldn't remember it. The world will say that's what it was. Me, nope, not what it was, even if it was happening at the same time, that's not what it was. It was either real, or a dream meant to teach me.

There are any number of things that God cannot do. Or, to be more precise, there are any number of non-things that God cannot do, because they aren't really things. They are word constructs that sound meaningful but are not. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because the statement implies that there is a weight limit to God's strength—a falsehood. God cannot save people in their sins, because the very meaning of the word "salvation" precludes sinfulness; sins are the very things that God is saving people from, so it's meaningless to speak of salvation in sin. In my understanding, God cannot do mighty works among the faithless and wicked, because the working of mighty things precludes faithlessness and wickedness (or perhaps faithlessness and wickedness preclude mighty works). It's like salvation in sin. It's not a real thing.

I wish that may exist in the future... I don't want other people to go through what I've been through in this situation... Given the modern state of dating among those of marriageable age, I unironically anticipate a cultural shift in the following generations that sees a resurgence of arranged marriages.

I'm familiar with that explanation. But it doesn't explain Jesus' words and what is described: Was Jesus talking to a spirit of epilepsy? Both pro and con. This is what I've found whenever I read an account from the Latter days. Just enough ambiguity in the description to hint at, but not really say much. This is not a disparagement of your point. I'm just kind of frustrated that we don't have some certainty on these types of things.

I see what you're saying. And I have difficulty arguing it. But I still argue my position. What sticks in my mind is Mark 9:14-27. Jesus cast out an evil spirit from a "boy". His father said he had this spirit since he was a "child". I know, we argue about the semantics of "boy" and "child". And we talk about he age of accountability. But there is something about this story, the way it is written, that makes me uncertain about such explanations. Could the prophet be possessed? My knee jerk reaction would say "no". But why? We don't know. Maybe that is one of the protections of apostles specifically. Maybe it is a gift of the Spirit. Maybe it is because of some other thing that simply isn't written in scriptures or even spoken of in General Conference. What authoritative sources are there from the apostles which address the question of this boy? I don't claim to know everything about possession. But I do know that we ALL should be very cautious to think we are immune.

I'm no longer sure if this idea is true. Two things: As far as I can tell, prostitution was EXTEMELY common among the ancient Israelites. Often, it was the only way most women could make a living without a husband. And there were plenty of men (both single and married) who patronized them. So, was this really considered "spiritually disturbed"? There is even a Jewish school of thought interpreting the Law of Moses' prohibition to refer to cult prostitutes only. But regular prostitution as a business model was perfectly legal. Looked down upon, but perfectly legal. I believe this idea that anyone is "righteous enough" to be immune from possession is a tenuous one. Some are certainly afforded protection. But just "how bad is bad?" Maybe? Maybe not?

I agree that the entire "alpha male" paradigm is absurd. We do not have "alpha males". We have jerks and megalomaniacs, and we have leaders. The former are only rarely effective in the latter position. Humans are not wolves, and human societies are not wolf packs. Only the very most primitive and violent human societies show any such tendencies.

I think the idea would have been fine if they would have used a fictional character instead of a historical figure. It’s still a good show, though.

As I wrote before, a scurrilous lie.

For those who missed it, I write for a family of local-level newspapers. The feedback I've gotten from my readers is that while they may not always disagree with my op/eds or movie reviews, they trust that I'm telling them the truth and that my statements are me calling things as I see them. What's happening in the OP is that people are getting upset they can't dictate what reality is.

Plus, it often happens that people are put into a calling because something about that calling would make them rise to the occasion, developing something about themselves in the process.

Eh, I haven't thought it was supposed to objective in years. It's supposed to influence people.

No, I don't disagree with the statistics. It's the implied idea that the particular statistics he discussed are problematic (for the most part), and the conclusions and interpretations he draws accordingly. The only real implied problem I did agree with is the fatherless homes, but then the conclusion/proposal....boy howdy did I disagree. I did agree with the idea that trades should be more emphasized...but not that it will solve the poison in the system. Girls surpassing boys in education is not a problem with the education system. Nor will redshirting the boys do much to fix what the problem is. But hey...I'm an old-school sexist, apparently. Because I think girls prioritizing education and career is one of the problems from the get go. So...you know.

My point is that I think an important principle to understand and embrace is that we need to put aside what we want in favor of what the Lord wants for us -- the natural man being an enemy to God and all that. Of course there's some semantics involved in the idea of "want" that makes such an idea debatable. At some level, we have to want to put aside what we want in favor of what the Lord wants. So, yeah...not totally irrelevant. But what I'm getting at is that if one accepts that the Lord knows better, then it behooves one to put aside natural desires in favor of whatever the Lord sees fit for us. It's an extremely important principle. Perhaps the most important one in life. I mean the very idea in the OP where she says, "He didn't serve a mission, but I didn't care..." implies a problem from the get go. Whether she cares or not shouldn't be relative. Whether the Lord cares or not should be. Which, of course, leads to the question of why didn't he serve a mission. The implication seems to be that he simply didn't want to. That's a pretty big red flag. Her not caring about it shouldn't matter, because her understanding, clearly, is shortsighted. She needs to put her trust in things that are not shortsighted instead. Specifically...in God and the core principles of the gospel. I guess in my mind, "equally yoked" doesn't matter much if the result is hell. And I dislike the premise that equally yoked is somehow viewed in certain cases as a priority over and above humility, faith and obedience. It's the same issue I take with people discussing "being one" or "unity" in the church as if that principle somehow outranks others. We are not meant to be one, equally yoked, or unified in evil. The how of these things must always be in and through Christ and obedience to Him.

https://adfmedia.org/case/hunter-v-us-department-education Court victory: Religious colleges can operate according to beliefs & receive federal financial aid.

To quote a scripture... "Have you inquired of the Lord?" I mean I would hope and assume that you had and you didn't get anything you understood. If you asked and got an answer then 'Just do it'... If you have not asked then again I say 'Just do it.' Otherwise it seems like you are in a position to show your agency. I mean that really is the whole point of being on earth. We become what we choose to become, and you have a choice right now to make, that will help define the kind of person you become. It that case you need to choose what kind of person you want to be, and make the choice that helps you get there

Looks like they found it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/01/australia/australia-radioactive-capsule-found-intl-hnk

There's a video clip floating around featuring Fred Rogers - yes, Mr. Rogers himself - testifying before Congress regarding what we today know as PBS. One of the people in Congress decided to get a bit cute with him. Fred put a dead stop to that with a single response. You can actually hear the room get quiet from the power of what he said. There are folks who claim that "alpha" types don't exist in society. What these people don't understand is that your actual "alpha" types don't need to brag or boast about who and what they are. Rather, they have a surer understanding of who and what they are, and they can as needed make that understanding manifest as a type of charisma or force of will. Often, this surer understanding comes from a form of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" where their experiences and accomplishments speak for themselves. Or consider Bob Ross. Not many people know this, but he was a sergeant in the Air Force. He had to frequently yell at, correct, and discipline his subordinates, and that took a toll on him. So he decided to start painting as a way to do something positive. In time, he was making more selling his paintings than he was from his salary. Hence his becoming a professional artist. That calm demeanor and those life lessons he provided each episode? That's hard experience at work and a desire for people to avoid negativity. Actual "alpha" types can generally recognize each other, and can easily co-exist so long as there is respect and understanding between them.

Gordan B. Hinckley and Boyd K. Packer were right:

This statement is extremely misleading. Even as a youth I knew enough about guns that I could build one from the contents of 80% or more of our nation’s garages. I also knew how to make a bomb – perhaps not as effective as what is currently available on the internet but I knew enough to do damage to things. Besides there are many ways other than guns (or bombs) that can be employed to endanger others for those so minded. We may not be able to end violence, but we do need to get better at solving and identifying why someone becomes homicidal. The Traveler

No, there wouldn't be anything like that because Section 89 specifically says: It is specifically for this dispensation only. And we have seen isolated incidents where this was important. I believe that in the coming days, it will be pretty wide-spread. Regarding the grapes and wine for Jews, that wasn't a direct prohibition. It was complicated. The prohibition was on any foods that had been used in pagan rituals and if it had bugs. Wine and fruits were often part of such rituals. So, only the fruits and juices (including wine) that had been handled, inspected, & processed by the covenant people would be acceptable for consumption. I have not heard of any Jewish sects that require the prohibition of wine. But "drunkenness" is generally looked upon unfavorably.