Home Page › Forums › History and Doctrine Discussions › Early church against medicine?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 15, 2011 at 4:36 pm #205811
amertune
GuestI was flipping through the “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” book (the blue one compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith). I don’t remember the exact quote, so I’ll paraphrase:
Quote:Concerning doctors and scientists, lean not on the arm of flesh. If you are sick you should go to the elders of the church.
Has anybody heard of this ever being practiced in the early church? I am certainly glad that we don’t seem to feel like that today.
March 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm #241225Anonymous
GuestWell, with some of the medical practices in the 1830’s, it might have been just as well to go to the Elders and get a blessings. I am also glad we are not goofy about medicine and such like some other religious beliefs purport.
March 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm #241226Anonymous
Guest+1 Cwald For quite a long period of time in past history, you were far better off going to see a witch for a potion (the village herbal medicine woman) or your priest for a blessing. The professional, “educated” medical doctors were just as likely to kill you by bleeding you to death to get out the ill humors from your system, per official “scientific” wisdom.
Yes. You will find some quotes along these lines from 19th century church leaders. The notions are pretty outdated today. But they did actually make some sense at the time.
March 16, 2011 at 4:26 am #241227Anonymous
GuestYes, some of that frontier medicine made people worse. Jonathan Stapley and Kristine Wright discussed healing rituals in the church, and noted that early mormons combined medicine and prayer. Quoting from the article:
Quote:several sisters administered to a child in a manner that highlights continued Mormon willingness to combine healing rituals with frontier medicine. In Utah, a writer for the Womanโs Exponent, probably editor Emmeline B.Wells, remembered the healing of a sick child: โThe little one had not seen or spoken for two days, its eyeballs were dried over, the sisters were called in to administer, Sister Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Sister Vilate, Sister Laura Pitkin and Presendia Kimball and one or two others. They administered, anointing the child with oil, and bathing its eyes with milk and water, and it was restored to life and health miraculously, but the sisters gave God the glory.โ149
You can see more at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/02/19/stapleywright-discuss-healings-by-mormon-women/ March 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm #241228Anonymous
GuestThat certainly makes sense. I’m certainly glad that we don’t have to rely on 19th century medicine. March 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm #241229Anonymous
GuestBrian Johnston wrote:You will find some quotes along these lines from 19th century church leaders. The notions are pretty outdated today. But they did actually make some sense at the time.
I agree, and think these are reasonable responses…that such thinking is out-dated. To me, it also seems like the same logic could apply to the Word of Wisdom. Back when it was received, it was a word of wisdom and in line with thinking of the times. Our world today is quit different and so the current WoW commandment seems outdated in some respects, which is curious why the Church places so much emphasis on it.The difference is that modern medicine, while they still have lots of learning to do, is of value to save lives and kill diseases and illnesses with stuff that really works. We don’t need to rely on prayer and herbal ointments like we used to.
With Word of Wisdom, one can argue it is outdated, but there is still value to abstain from some substances for a more healthy lifestyle and for a spiritual blessing that comes from being faithful and having self-restraint. The downside of holding on to 1830 health codes (WoW)
is far lessthen the downside of holding on to 1830 medical practice. I guess the other difference is we don’t have a revelation in D&C about avoiding doctors.
March 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm #241230Anonymous
GuestHeber13 wrote:I guess the other difference is we don’t have a revelation in D&C about avoiding doctors.
It’s probably a good thing that we didn’t canonize everything Joseph Smith taught.
๐ March 16, 2011 at 7:21 pm #241231Anonymous
Guestamertune wrote:It’s probably a good thing that we didn’t canonize everything Joseph Smith taught.
๐
Amen.Kind of a bummer we canonized the polygamy revelation. I wonder…can you uncanonize something??
:problem: March 16, 2011 at 9:49 pm #241232Anonymous
GuestHeber13 wrote:amertune wrote:It’s probably a good thing that we didn’t canonize everything Joseph Smith taught.
๐
Amen.Kind of a bummer we canonized the polygamy revelation. I wonder…can you uncanonize something??
:problem: You mean like they did with the Lectures on Faith? I’m pretty sure that they could if they wanted to. Maybe they could restore the anti-polygamy section that was replaced by 132.
March 17, 2011 at 12:00 am #241233Anonymous
Guestamertune wrote:Kind of a bummer we canonized the polygamy revelation. I wonder…can you uncanonize something??
You mean like they did with the Lectures on Faith? I’m pretty sure that they could if they wanted to. Maybe they could restore the anti-polygamy section that was replaced by 132.
I’m sure the church leadership can do many things but imagine the fallout. Niether the Lectures on Faith nor the anti-poligamy section were presented as revelations from God. I think of the Standard works as a Constitution. One can do many things working within the foundation of the Constitution and should alter the Constitution only as a last resort. I believe institute manuals, the bible dictionary, footnotes, chapter headings etc. are all ways of redirecting the emphasis without changing the actual Canon.
amertune wrote:Concerning doctors and scientists, lean not on the arm of flesh. If you are sick you should go to the elders of the church.
I asked about this quote at the recreation of what would have been the Nauvoo pharmacy. They summoned the senior (male) missionaries to deal with me. Things quieted down after they discovered I was the ward mission leader back home but for a few moments the tension was pretty thick.
March 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm #241234Anonymous
GuestI’m glad it’s not today. I was saying in last priesthood class that at least we don’t have to be like Christian Science or JWs, we get both the medical help and the blessings…
March 21, 2011 at 8:56 pm #241235Anonymous
GuestIt would be interesting to know which we would chose if we had to make a choice. I suppose I already know because I go to the drug store or doctor and treat a priesthood blessing as an afterthought. I’m not sure what that says about us (me). Very insightful thread though….
March 21, 2011 at 9:00 pm #241236Anonymous
GuestAll I know is that if it weren’t for the women in my life, I would pretty much never give or receive blessings. March 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm #241237Anonymous
GuestBruce in Montana wrote:It would be interesting to know which we would chose if we had to make a choice. I suppose I already know because I go to the drug store or doctor and treat a priesthood blessing as an afterthought. I’m not sure what that says about us (me).
Very insightful thread though….
I think it’s good to have both.
I have heard people in the medical profession say that bedside manner is everything, and maybe PBs are part of the bedside manner as opposed to the medical intervention.
There are certain cases where the PB is the best thing that can be done until help arrives etc.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.