Was JSJr a believing Mormon?

[_sock puppet]

As I recall Mormonism, we were taught that we'd be held accountable for the negative impact we have on other people. But whenever the injustice to another person (the one seeking the blessing) for the unworthiness/unworthy behavior of another (the priesthood blesser, in this instance) is pointed up, then the answer is that the god-treatment to that other (the ill individual) is what counts (for whether god will heal the ill person). So there really would be no negative impact on that ill individual for which the unworthy priesthood blesser must be held to account, right?

[_Runtu]

Hmmm...Actually, it seems odd that Featherstone would say something like that. As long as I have been a member, I have been taught what BC sited in this case. If the person asking the blessing is faithful, and does not know that the priesthood holder was unworthy, the blessing itself is still valid. However, as BC stated there are still spiritual consequences for the unworthy holder.

I was thinking of this:

I know of a great man who held his dead son in his arms, and said, “In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power and authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, I command you to live.” And the dead boy opened up his eyes.

This great brother could not have possibly done that had he been looking at a pornographic piece of material a few nights before or if he had been involved in any other transgression of that kind. The priesthood has to have a pure conduit to operate.

[_consiglieri]

Why did JSJr then need a prop, a papyrus with hieroglyphs and hieratics, to believe he was doing 'translating'?

Have you watched Dumbo lately?

A little more seriously, I think reliance on physical objects for spiritual manifestations is often associated with a lack of education, and that as a person (or group of people) become more educated, their reliance on physical objects for spiritual power diminishes.

I am not certain whether that is a good or bad thing.

It could also be argued that as people become more educated, they tend to see themselves as more capable of existing in a world without divine intervention; and that this attitude of itself diminishes the ability to obtain spiritual power or manifestations through physical objects.

But if I had a glowing rock in my youth that really worked to translate plates, I would probably continue to believe in the efficacy of physical objects regardless of how well educated I became.

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. --Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.

All the Best!

--Wordsworthlieri

[_Fence Sitter]

So would there be negative consequences to an unworthy priesthood holder who gives a blessing with the intent of helping someone?

[_Runtu]

So would there be negative consequences to an unworthy priesthood holder who gives a blessing with the intent of helping someone?

Apparently, the answer is yes. Strange, that.

[Guest]

The other side of this coin, why does the COB not continue to teach Mormons to do as JSJr did, placing faith and confidence in inanimate objects?

Well we still have garments, holy oil, sacred temples, and the sacrament. Give it another hundred years and maybe the garments will just be an iron on patch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapular

Edit: I thought I would add this quote from wikipedia about scapulars. Having been raised Catholic, and then converting to Mormonism, I have always found the existence and the history of scapulars fascinating for obvious reasons.

The term scapular (from Latin scapulae, "shoulders") as used today refers to two specific, yet related, Christian Sacramentals, namely the monastic and devotional scapulars, although both forms may simply be referred to as "scapular".[1][2]

The "monastic scapular" appeared first, perhaps as early as the 7th century in the Order of Saint Benedict.[3] It is a somewhat large length of cloth suspended both front and back from the shoulders of the wearer, often reaching to the knees. It may vary in shape, color, size and style. Monastic scapulars originated as aprons worn by medieval monks, and were later extended to habits for members of religious organizations, orders or confraternities. Monastic scapulars now form part of the habit of monks and nuns in many Christian orders.[4][5]

The "devotional scapular" is a much smaller item and evolved from the monastic scapular. These may also be worn by individuals who are not members of a monastic order and the Roman Catholic Church considers them sacramentals. The devotional scapular typically consists of two small (usually rectangular) pieces of cloth, wood or laminated paper, a few inches in size which may bear religious images or text. These are joined by two bands of cloth and the wearer places one square on the chest, rests the bands one on each shoulder and lets the second square drop down the back.[6][7]

In many cases, both forms of the scapular come with a set of promises for the faithful who wear them. Some of the promises are rooted in tradition, and others have been formally approved by religious leaders. For instance, for Roman Catholics, as for some other sacramentals, over the centuries several popes have approved specific indulgences for scapulars.

[_mfbukowski]

Do TBMs think

No TBM's think any of that that I know of. It's the keeping of the relevant commandment or doing the rite in accordance with the Lord's instruction that provides the effect.

Absolutely.

The forms are about obedience, nothing more, nothing less.

I personally think Joseph lacked confidence to "translate" an entire book by pure revelation and needed props which I think he thought he was genuinely "translating".

[_Fence Sitter]

I personally think Joseph lacked confidence to "translate" an entire book by pure revelation and needed props which I think he thought he was genuinely "translating".

Which would explain why sometimes the props were present and sometimes not.

[_mfbukowski]

I was thinking of this:

I know of a great man who held his dead son in his arms, and said, “In the name of Jesus Christ and by the power and authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood, I command you to live.” And the dead boy opened up his eyes.

This great brother could not have possibly done that had he been looking at a pornographic piece of material a few nights before or if he had been involved in any other transgression of that kind. The priesthood has to have a pure conduit to operate.

One might argue that an individual who would do that would not have sufficient faith or be "far enough along the path" to allow his priesthood to raise the dead.

The mere fact that he was transgressing to that extent would be enough to show that his will was not in accordance with God's will sufficiently to know if the boy should be raised or if it was God's will that he remain dead.

[_Runtu]

Which would explain why sometimes the props were present and sometimes not.

As I recall, the Book of Mormon plates were not present for most, if not all, of the translation process. Strange that he would feel more confident in his abilities early on than he did a few years later with the Book of Abraham.