Possession / exorcism


twort
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting - however, I do not recall Jesus ever holding someone accountable being controlled be an unclean spirit. There seem to be parallels to someone being sick. I have mixed thoughts here - especially with what we call mental illness. I am quite sure as well that homosexuality and various addictions is a result of unclean spiritual influences.

The Traveler

Your previous quote you said the scriptures are quite clear on the subject and proceeded to say that a fool thinks that he can break away from the flaxen cords of those influences to the point that they can't. Thus, being controlled by those evil influences.

Now, you seem to be saying that that person would not be held accountable for their actions as if it parallels someone being sick. You are quite sure of some examples you give there.

There are several diseases in which a person has split personalities and can suddenly change the way they act, even common diseases such as rapid cycling manic depression. Schizophrenics can rapidly switch from seemingly normal acting to paranoid or angry and threatening. But I would suggest that a new spirit didn't suddenly jump in the drivers seat of their body but that their body shut off the influence from their spirit.

I think, likewise, there are people who ignore spiritual influences over time slowly extinguishing the light of their soul to the point that the primitive body takes over all control. They simply act under carnal influences and when that happens Satan has greater influence and control over their actions, but still the person's spirit hasn't jumped out of the drivers seat. They have just given up control. And they will be held responsible for giving up control of their bodies.

The point I am trying to get at is, how do you know that "possession" means that another spirit kicked the person's spirit out of the 'drivers seat' of their body, which is what is commonly understood by "possession"? How do you distinguish that from someone who simply ignores spiritual influences and lets the body itself take control? ... not necessarily another spirit taking control. Maybe "exorcism" really means giving back the control of the body to the spirit and not necessarily kicking out any squatter spirits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I have a hard time understanding how more than one spirit can possess a body. If we believe that the spirit fills the space and conforms to the shape of the body in its whole and that spirit matter is finer than physical matter then how could more than one spirit occupy the same space?

Excellent questions. Ultimately, we don't know. We have very little understanding on the technicalities on the spirit side of the equation, so that's where most of the loose ends are.

As for the physical side of things, statistically speaking, the majority of the volume that our bodies occupy is empty space (something like 80-90% if I recall right).

We learn from the DC that spirit is some higher form of matter.

Possibility: perhaps its possible that spirit does not occupy the complete 80-90% space left over... Or it may interact completely differently. We just don't know

We also learn that the Holy Ghost is spirit so it may enter into us.

And, if they can't occupy the same space then what happens to the spirit of the person when they are possessed? By definition that would mean the spirit has separated from the body and that is what we call death. So, when the spirit comes back to the body that would be birth again. We say though that once we die and the spirit reunites with the body it will never again be separated.

Good question. It may be perhaps that the body is dead technically speaking, however there is a difference between just having your spirit returned to your normal body, and your spirit being given a new immortal body- one is just a temporary restoration (such as what happened with lazarus) the other is a resurrection. There are accounts of people who have died, and met with spirits but were told that they had to return for a time.

I think a better description of "possessed" if it really exists is being heavily influenced by evil spirits to the point of the persons spirit not maintaining control of the body. I don't think another spirit can control a body that doesn't belong to that spirit only by way of influence, not direct control.

That's certainly a possibility again there just isn't the info on the technicalities of how spirits operate that we can draw from, whether it's that method or some other, the result is the same- an individual loses most or all control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - however, I do not recall Jesus ever holding someone accountable being controlled be an unclean spirit. There seem to be parallels to someone being sick. I have mixed thoughts here - especially with what we call mental illness. I am quite sure as well that homosexuality and various addictions is a result of unclean spiritual influences.

The Traveler

I've had very severe depression all my life. In the recent 2 years, I've realized that it's very largely a spiritual disorder, although mine is also chemical in nature (I take the maximum daily dosage of Paxil allowed to help alleviate the symptoms).

I don't think we can really tell where mental disorders end and "possession" (or the influence of an unclean spirit) begin. I do know that in our fallen states no one (except perhaps those who have advanced to the Church of the Firstborn) fully realizes the consequences of our actions and the full power of our agency, and Satan and his minions can creep in with our full permission over time without us consciously realizing it.

One thing I can say from personal experiences: there are times when I very clearly realize that I am being heavily influenced by an evil spirit. Because of my level of knowledge, the attack is at a very basic level- i.e., deny GOD and break HIS commandments to spite HIM. I don't doubt that if I ever gave into such promptings and continued for a while I would be willingly letting an evil spirit in, and would quite possibly have my faculties taken over for a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also learn that the Holy Ghost is spirit so it may enter into us.

There are accounts of people who have died, and met with spirits but were told that they had to return for a time.

.

Can you tell me where it says that the Holy Ghost can enter us literally? I know it can be with us always, didn't know he could "enter" us.

I have heard some of those stories about near death. I am not sure about actual death, such as brain dead.

Most of the stories I have heard about spirits leaving and coming back are in people that are nearly dead. The interesting thing about that is that most people on this forum, when we have had similar discussions, believe that the body cannot exist alive without an attached spirit. Those stories are suggesting the spirit can leave the body, while the body stays alive without a spirit for a period of time and then come back to it.

Like you say, we can't really know but I would have a hard time understanding how the spirit actually left the body and then came back to it. If we believe that then I think we have to accept the idea that a living body can stay alive without a spirit. Do you believe it can? Or can it stay alive with another spirit controlling it, which is what is suggested by "possession".

It would be a convenient belief as it would support the idea that there could be "bodies" on the earth without spirits before Adam and Eve arrived. And Adam and Eve, being first "man" are the first with spirits attached. I think a belief in true "possession" would have to accept a belief that a body can stay alive without its spirit attached to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me where it says that the Holy Ghost can enter us literally? I know it can be with us always, didn't know he could "enter" us.

Doctrine and Covenants section 130:22-

22The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Now this may be a figure of speech but it sounds literal. I'm open to both views.

I have heard some of those stories about near death. I am not sure about actual death, such as brain dead.

isn't it like 9 minutes without oxygen the brain starts dying? I've heard from individuals that said their doctors had told them they were "dead" longer than that, and yet seem to be fully functional. (altho I'm fairly sure in the case of restorations, like lazarus, that the body had to be healed of any degradation, as well as having the spirit put back into it)

Most of the stories I have heard about spirits leaving and coming back are in people that are nearly dead. The interesting thing about that is that most people on this forum, when we have had similar discussions, believe that the body cannot exist alive without an attached spirit. Those stories are suggesting the spirit can leave the body, while the body stays alive without a spirit for a period of time and then come back to it.

Like you say, we can't really know but I would have a hard time understanding how the spirit actually left the body and then came back to it. If we believe that then I think we have to accept the idea that a living body can stay alive without a spirit. Do you believe it can? Or can it stay alive with another spirit controlling it, which is what is suggested by "possession".

Our bodies are like machines, such as a car for example- and our spirit is the owner, it does the driving and perhaps making sure everything running smoothly in concert, but not much more than that. It does not make the wheels go round or actually power the engine. When that owner leaves the car can stay running for a time in a limited way but eventually degrades and falls apart, and much quicker than if it had someone caring for it.

personally IMO in the case of a possession that we have one or more spirits entering and wresting control from one or more functions (which cannot be taken back by the owners own abilities), rather than ejecting the primary owner or spirit.

I believe all matter and organism organization have their own spirit. (Which on off- thoughts is probably why when we die the body does not suddenly disintegrate into the basic elements) See DC 93:33-35

It would be a convenient belief as it would support the idea that there could be "bodies" on the earth without spirits before Adam and Eve arrived. And Adam and Eve, being first "man" are the first with spirits attached. I think a belief in true "possession" would have to accept a belief that a body can stay alive without its spirit attached to it.

there is a certain logic to that train of thought. Or it could be something else, however, whatever occured that God did to create man and put spirit into him does not matter much to me. Nor has God thought it important enough to give me any revelation on the topic.

So I generally lean towards what sounds most reasonable

Having whatever happened summed up in "..created man from dust." leaves a lot of elbow room for figuring out what that entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it like 9 minutes without oxygen the brain starts dying? I've heard from individuals that said their doctors had told them they were "dead" longer than that, and yet seem to be fully functional. (altho I'm fairly sure in the case of restorations, like lazarus, that the body had to be healed of any degradation, as well as having the spirit put back into it)

personally IMO in the case of a possession that we have one or more spirits entering and wresting control from one or more functions (which cannot be taken back by the owners own abilities), rather than ejecting the primary owner or spirit.

I believe all matter and organism organization have their own spirit. (Which on off- thoughts is probably why when we die the body does not suddenly disintegrate into the basic elements) See DC 93:33-35

.

Thanks for your great responses. I find this interesting.

Stroke causes damage within 2 to 3 minutes of lack of blood flow. I was more referring to "brain death" which there are certain criteria that I am too far out from my nursing days to remember all of them but it includes lack of brain waves by EEG and no response to hypercapnia. I recall in one case where Jesus "brought back to life" a woman that He described as not dead, but that she was sleeping. Possibly people thought they were dead because they were in a coma. How would they know the difference?

Which brings me to another thought, the "spirits" of the devil may be referring to problems with the car itself, going back to the metaphor of driving a car, the driver being the spirit. Brigham Young was big on discussing our dual beings, both spirit and body and said (I believe on several occasions) that the devil has no power over our spirit only our body. He can only have influence over our spirit through the carnal, the physical body. The spirit of the devil cannot really "wrestle" with our spirits directly. The only thing he can "wrestle" with is the body itself. This is probably why there is so much cross-over between the description of healing and removing "evil spirits". I think there are times where description of removing "evil spirits" is actually a description of Jesus making the body whole. Then that person's spirit is left without having to "wrestle" the "evil" of this carnal state. I don't think the spirit of the devil can wrestle with our spirit only by invitation. But I do think the spirit of the devil can challenge our spirit via influences over the body as with what happened to Job and exactly how the devil challenged Jesus, through carnal desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we are in a fallen state where we have influences from both good and evil influences. In physics there are particles called bosons that can have the same quantum state such as occupying the same space at the same time. If we know something is possible through physics - why cannot it be possible in religious thinking?

I do not believe that a fallen person can do good and not be influenced by a holy spirit nor can a fallen person do evil without influence from an evil spirit. Because in mortality we are subject to spirits and not wholly accountable ourselves we can repent. Thus being influenced by an unclean spirit is not a reason to forgo repentance but a reason that the possibility is both real and just and the only reason that I can logically understand of how Jesus takes upon him our sins through the atonement. If we are completely accountable then the atonement just does not make sense.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that a fallen person can do good and not be influenced by a holy spirit nor can a fallen person do evil without influence from an evil spirit. Because in mortality we are subject to spirits and not wholly accountable ourselves we can repent. Thus being influenced by an unclean spirit is not a reason to forgo repentance but a reason that the possibility is both real and just and the only reason that I can logically understand of how Jesus takes upon him our sins through the atonement. If we are completely accountable then the atonement just does not make sense.

The Traveler

But is what you're saying denying free agency? It seems that you're taking a somewhat narrow view of the Atonement and what it does for mankind. It's more than repentance and forgiveness. It's satisfying justice so God, the perfect one, can interact with mankind, the imperfect beings. Otherwise there would be a huge gulf between us because "no unclean thing can dwell with God."

We, being here, are in a training ground as to who we will listen and answer to. Are we going to learn and exercise our agency to listen to good or are we going to learn and exercise our agency to listen to bad. Whichever way we go becomes the predominate "voice" that we follow. I dare say that most will follow the voice of good. It's just a matter of how far they will follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we are in a fallen state where we have influences from both good and evil influences. In physics there are particles called bosons that can have the same quantum state such as occupying the same space at the same time. If we know something is possible through physics - why cannot it be possible in religious thinking?

That is based on the string theory. It is a theory, we do not "know" that it is possible to occupy the same space. We are limited by how small we can see these forces.

I think the bottom line reason to think about it that way is to realize that an evil spirit can't take over one's body without some form of invitation or "leaving the keys in the car and the engine running" kind of thing. The body can overpower the spirit. And that is what I was proposing in the last few posts. And that is how certain diseases have their effect over the spirit as well. But, I don't think a spirit can directly affect our spirits, only influence them when accepted and listening to it. Like I am not going to hear the chatter on a telephone line unless I put it to my ear. Likewise, the Holy Ghost cannot have an affect unless we keep the connection going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked to perform an exorcism during my mission. I recognized it as schizophrenia. I just did my best to give her a blessing to comfort her, that god loves her and will help her through it. I have seen plenty of people who have appeared to be possessed by demons while working with and living around people with mental illness. but I know that there really is no such thing as demon posession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asked to perform an exorcism during my mission. I recognized it as schizophrenia. I just did my best to give her a blessing to comfort her, that god loves her and will help her through it. I have seen plenty of people who have appeared to be possessed by demons while working with and living around people with mental illness. but I know that there really is no such thing as demon posession.

I beg to differ from personal experience. But, I agree with the post from way back in this thread that it's not something for public discussion.

The Catholic Church doesn't have the rite of exorcism because they're stupid enough to recognize the difference between possession and schizophrenia or any mental anything.

Even Jesus drove away the devil from a man possessed. I guess he was just schizoid too?

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is based on the string theory. It is a theory, we do not "know" that it is possible to occupy the same space. We are limited by how small we can see these forces.

...

Not true - photons (light particles) are bosons and can occupy the same space at the same time. It is interesting that light is used in scripture to describe spiritual matter. This is a most interesting subject - perhaps something for another thread.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is what you're saying denying free agency? It seems that you're taking a somewhat narrow view of the Atonement and what it does for mankind. It's more than repentance and forgiveness. It's satisfying justice so God, the perfect one, can interact with mankind, the imperfect beings. Otherwise there would be a huge gulf between us because "no unclean thing can dwell with God."

We, being here, are in a training ground as to who we will listen and answer to. Are we going to learn and exercise our agency to listen to good or are we going to learn and exercise our agency to listen to bad. Whichever way we go becomes the predominate "voice" that we follow. I dare say that most will follow the voice of good. It's just a matter of how far they will follow it.

My friend Slamjet,

The word is agency - I think you need to become more familiar with the meaning of agency and how it is used in scripture. Most students of scripture concentrate on the concept of choice but that is not the extent of the meaning of agency. I submit if agency meant simple choice the word choice would be used rather than agency. An agent is someone that represents someone else. Thus the choice in agency is not so much a choice of what we are doing as it is a choice in who we are representing in what we are doing.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend Slamjet,

The word is agency - I think you need to become more familiar with the meaning of agency and how it is used in scripture. Most students of scripture concentrate on the concept of choice but that is not the extent of the meaning of agency. I submit if agency meant simple choice the word choice would be used rather than agency. An agent is someone that represents someone else. Thus the choice in agency is not so much a choice of what we are doing as it is a choice in who we are representing in what we are doing.

The Traveler

My friend The Traveler,

Like many words in the English language, there are multiple uses and definitions for it. Agency, in this context, is a philosophical term that needs a philosophical definition. Such definition is: The capacity, condition or state of acting or of exerting power. Thus, philosophically, Agency is the capacity of an individual to make choices.

Furthermore, Robert D. Hales defines agency in religious terms "...as the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and “to act for [ourselves] and not to be acted upon.” Agency is to act with accountability and responsibility for our actions."

And he references 2 Nephi 2:26 which reads "And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given."

Thus, as a result of the Atonement Christ made for us, we are forever given free agency So I am quite familiar with the term Agency and did use it in it's proper context and in the proper descriptor.

Slamjet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Jesus drove away the devil from a man possessed. I guess he was just schizoid too?

The man could have had a mental disorder that the people were calling a "demon", how would they know the difference? How would anyone know the difference in some cases. People with split personalities or paranoid schizophrenia or anger personality disorders can suddenly change into a "different" person. Jesus can make the body whole and thus, "remove the demon".

At one point the people thought a woman was dead but Jesus said, no she is sleeping.

What difference would it make if it was a condition of the body versus an actual evil spirit taking control of the body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man could have had a mental disorder that the people were calling a "demon", how would they know the difference? How would anyone know the difference in some cases. People with split personalities or paranoid schizophrenia or anger personality disorders can suddenly change into a "different" person. Jesus can make the body whole and thus, "remove the demon".

At one point the people thought a woman was dead but Jesus said, no she is sleeping.

What difference would it make if it was a condition of the body versus an actual evil spirit taking control of the body?

Then why does the scripture say that Jesus cast out the evil spirit instead of cured his illness?

There is a big difference. A doctor will not treat a cancer patient with diabetes treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why does the scripture say that Jesus cast out the evil spirit instead of cured his illness?

There is a big difference. A doctor will not treat a cancer patient with diabetes treatment.

Because of what was understood at the time the books were written. Mental disease = Demons. You need to put things into context with the times, not with today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of what was understood at the time the books were written. Mental disease = Demons. You need to put things into context with the times, not with today.

Sure. You can interpret it that way.

Or, I can take it from personal experience, the things I learned and saw while I was Catholic, and the testimony of the first miracle ever performed in the restored church - that of the exorcism of Newel Knight by Joseph Smith - to take the literal interpretation of Jesus Christ's miracle.

But, hey, you don't have to believe it, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. You can interpret it that way.

Or, I can take it from personal experience, the things I learned and saw while I was Catholic, and the testimony of the first miracle ever performed in the restored church - that of the exorcism of Newel Knight by Joseph Smith - to take the literal interpretation of Jesus Christ's miracle.

But, hey, you don't have to believe it, I guess.

Hey, come on. I was only pointing out that the term and diagnosis of Mental Illness is a recent event. It was not a term in the Biblical times. So when a demonic extrication was performed, it may have been the healing of a mental disease, but it was interpreted by what was known AT THE TIME, as demonic possession. It took until modern times to diagnose schizophrenia, depression and a whole host of mental disorders. Am I dismissing the possibility of demonic possession? no, not at all. I'm just saying that there are other diagnosis's and factors to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we know nearly as much about mental illnesses as we think we do.

As for actual demonic possession, when JESUS healed the man who called himself Legion (Mark 5:9), he cast out the devils into a herd of swine, which immediately drowned themselves (gives you a glimpse into the awful state the devils are in: they want a body so badly but the moment they get one they seek to abuse it). Also, on numerous occasions the unclean spirits called JESUS by name and asked not to be cast out.

Our modern understanding of mental illnesses does not cover the whole spectrum of demonic possession found in the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we know nearly as much about mental illnesses as we think we do.

As for actual demonic possession, when JESUS healed the man who called himself Legion (Mark 5:9), he cast out the devils into a herd of swine, which immediately drowned themselves (gives you a glimpse into the awful state the devils are in: they want a body so badly but the moment they get one they seek to abuse it). Also, on numerous occasions the unclean spirits called JESUS by name and asked not to be cast out.

Our modern understanding of mental illnesses does not cover the whole spectrum of demonic possession found in the scriptures.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, come on. I was only pointing out that the term and diagnosis of Mental Illness is a recent event. It was not a term in the Biblical times. So when a demonic extrication was performed, it may have been the healing of a mental disease, but it was interpreted by what was known AT THE TIME, as demonic possession. It took until modern times to diagnose schizophrenia, depression and a whole host of mental disorders. Am I dismissing the possibility of demonic possession? no, not at all. I'm just saying that there are other diagnosis's and factors to look at.

Sorry slamjet! I didn't mean you as in YOU-slamjet. Yeah, my bad for saying that while quoting your post... I should pay better attention.

I was actually referring more to riverogue and Seminarysnoozer's posts. Sorry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry slamjet! I didn't mean you as in YOU-slamjet. Yeah, my bad for saying that while quoting your post... I should pay better attention.

I was actually referring more to riverogue and Seminarysnoozer's posts. Sorry!

No problem and thanks for clearing it up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. You can interpret it that way.

Or, I can take it from personal experience, the things I learned and saw while I was Catholic, and the testimony of the first miracle ever performed in the restored church - that of the exorcism of Newel Knight by Joseph Smith - to take the literal interpretation of Jesus Christ's miracle.

But, hey, you don't have to believe it, I guess.

I believe it but you have to realize that a personal "experience" may not be what actually happened.

Here is a guy that felt sick of body and mind for some time. His appearance alarmed his wife. Joseph Smith was called in and he could immediately tell that he was "suffering very much in his mind". Those are his words, not mine. And then it sounds to me like he had a seizure. He was sick, confused and then suddenly went into distortions, ultimately resulting in what sounds to me like opisthotonos - "he was caught up off the floor of the apartment and tossed about most fearfully" Opisthotonos is a sudden contraction of the body that causes an arching of the back, head back and appears as if someone comes off the floor. I've seen that myself, several times. It is a very scary thing. Finally Joseph gets hold of his hand. After a seizure people are confused and say all sorts of strange, half awake - half asleep things. Joseph blessed him and then he was calm.

At the end of the story, he says "As soon as consciousness returned, his bodily weakness was such that we were obliged to lay him upon his bed and wait upon him for some time." So, his descriptions of seeing a devil leave and him flying up to the ceiling were while he was unconscious.

Yes, the people around him saw Joseph calm him down through the power of God and rebuke a "devil", in other words an ailment of the body, possibly. Newel said that he could see a 'devil fly out of him' at a time that he was very much suffering in his mind or he was mostly unconscious. Everyone around him didn't see a 'devil fly out of him'. That was his confused or post-ictal perception of what happened.

As a nurse I have seen this scene 100 times over. I have even seen Elders come in at the end of the seizure and calm the patient down and stop the agitation after the seizure itself ends.

I am not saying it wasn't a devil "possession" I am just leaving an open mind about what "possession" means with a possible definition being the corrupted and therefore 'evil' body that we all have overpowering the spirit via ailment. And the power of healing revealing itself in the same way people describe exorcism.

I would pose the question, if he was truly possessed by a devil to the point of not controlling his body, how would he maintain memory of the event as if he was still himself, talking in the first person? If he was possessed then why did he say he saw a "devil fly out of him"? He wasn't "him" at that point if he was "possessed" unless the possession was actually his own body suppressing his spirit, then it would still be 'him'. Either he was 'possessed' and then he wasn't himself or the devil spirit was only trying to possess him and never really did or the 'devil spirit' an ailment of his own body that Joseph removed.

Of those options, it wouldn't make it any less of a miracle if it was an ailment, like a seizure. The human mind tries to interpret what is experienced based on what is familiar. I would think that Joseph and Newel and the adults in the room had very little experience with seizures but had some experience with stories of 'devil possession'.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share