Brigham Young on doctors
Spencer Shellman
I recently read this intriguing quote from Brigham Young (JD 15:226).
"Who is the real doctor? That man who knows by the Spirit of revelation
what ails an individual, and by the same Spirit nows what medicine to
administer. That is the real doctor, the others are quacks."
While reading this I wondered to myself, "Is this true today? Does the
Lord expect us to seek his inspiration in the treatment of disease and
affliction, or is he so impressed by this century's advances in medical
technology that he figures we can handle it on our own?"
Any thoughts?
--
"If one hand claps and the angels dancing on the head of a pin don't
hear it,
does it make a sound?"
Spencer D. Shellman
dave cragun
> I recently read this intriguing quote from Brigham Young (JD 15:226).
> "Who is the real doctor? That man who knows by the Spirit of revelation
> what ails an individual, and by the same Spirit nows what medicine to
> administer. That is the real doctor, the others are quacks."
> While reading this I wondered to myself, "Is this true today? Does the
> Lord expect us to seek his inspiration in the treatment of disease and
> affliction, or is he so impressed by this century's advances in medical
> technology that he figures we can handle it on our own?"
> Any thoughts?
As was mentioned in at least one other response, we do need to turn
first to God in any situation. Truly He is the Great Healer and it is
to him that we owe our devotion.
Science and medicine have certainly progressed extensively since Brigham
Young's oration mentioned above. I find it hard to believe that
"quacks" have extended the lifespan of humans by 30-40 years over the
last century or two. I also believe that the source of science is God
and that He wants us to discover more about ourselves and the universe
that we live in and that anything we discover is because He 'allows' us
to discover it.
One of my favorite sayings that I've heard is "Pray as though everything
depends on the Lord, and then act as though everything depends on YOU."
The Lord wants to help us out but He expects us to do our part. Since
we have greatly expanded our medical knowledge to the point that much of
it is truly considered a science (not an art), I believe that we should
act to engage our knowledge in the treatment of our diseases.
Therefore, we should seek our Priesthood blessings just as earnestly as
we seek out care from the physicians.
I am sorry that a previous poster has had such negative experiences with
the medical profession, I believe it to be the most gratifying and
enjoyable profession to me. There will always be scandals and problems
with individuals in any profession. I'll leave it at that.
dave cragun
Medical Student
University of Utah School of Medicine
The Shoe
In Brother Brigham's time, medicine was slip shod. There were no real
standards for training, no weeding out process as we have now with the
grind of medical school and internships. Consider his comments in the
context of his time, not on Monday morning. We may well have felt the same
way ourselves had we lived then.
Unfortunately we have a rather significant minority in the LDS community
who look askance (sp?) at modern medicine. I once home taught a family
that simply did not believe in doctors. They asked me to give the sick
child a blessing one night. After the blessing, I suggested they take her
to a doctor because the child was obviously very sick, burning up with
fever. They quietly explained that doctors were evil. Then they asked me
to be removed as their home teacher because of my "lack of faith.
I am certain most of you have heard the story about the guy who refused
transportation to evacuate his home upon the announcement that a flood was
on its way. "The Lord will take care of me". The water rises, he refuses
boat transportation when that was all that could be used. He refused a
helicopter as he straddled the roof. "The Lord will take care of me", he
always told his would be rescuers. You know the rest of the story. He
gets to the other side, upset at the Lord for not saving him. The Lord's
reply: "I
sent you a truck, a boat and a helicopter and you refused them".
Modern medicine, in my opinion, represents the truck, boat and helicopter.
But I do not know how to get the point across to the Saints who have the
attitude under discussion.
Raymond & Sherri Hurst
Brigham Young also disliked lawyers. I think he said they were all
involved in "a bogus business"
Raymond
The Shoe
[Moderator's Note: Keep follow-up messages on topic]
In my opinion, it turns out that he understated the problem.
Raymond & Sherri Hurst <hu...@pe.net> wrote in article
<5jaiil$5...@q.seanet.com>...
The Shoe
Sorry Moderators. I believe BY's remarks reflect his desire to teach that
gospel principles come first, that God is the one we should turn to, not
lawyers and other learned men. Remember what he told the founder of BYU,
something to the effect don't even teach the alphabet without the spirit of
God. He did not see God's hand in the legal and medical professions of the
day.
>
> > Raymond
> >
> >
>
>
b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com
In article <5j5tni$9...@q.seanet.com>, bdwa...@southeast.net (Ben Warner) writes:
> In article <5j177q$a...@q.seanet.com>, shel...@burgoyne.com says...
>>
>>I recently read this intriguing quote from Brigham Young (JD 15:226).
>>"Who is the real doctor? That man who knows by the Spirit of revelation
>>what ails an individual, and by the same Spirit nows what medicine to
>>administer. That is the real doctor, the others are quacks."
>>While reading this I wondered to myself, "Is this true today? Does the
>>Lord expect us to seek his inspiration in the treatment of disease and
>>affliction, or is he so impressed by this century's advances in medical
>>technology that he figures we can handle it on our own?"
>>Any thoughts?
[snip]
> I have heard otherwise faithful LDS say that a blessing was no longer
> needed, because after all, the doctor had in under control!
>
> If you add that to the recent national survey that places doctors and nurses
> as more-respected positions than clergy, and then tie that together with
> the ever-increasing rates of iatrogenic infections and the numbers of
> blatant examples of medical malfeasance that are being reported, and you
> throw in a healthy dose of a modified Hippocratic Oath that deletes the line
> forbidding abortion, and you see the number of doctors willing to perjure
> themselves before Congress on the partial-birth abortion issue, and you
> see the gag rules in HMO's, suddenly the picture starts to open up
> and you think that maybe Brigham Young was right after all.
I recently listened to a talk about doctors from a practicing family doctor
who had some interesting things to say about doctors and hospitals and even
more about the pharmacological companies. His data was backed up with reports
from the American Medical Association and other prominant research
associations.
Couple that with the latest release of information of the coming battle over
infectious diseases from over use of anti biotics and we have a stage all set
up for one of the most bizarre episodes I've ever read about. There is a book
put out by Desseret Books called "Spiritual Survival in the Last Days" in which
President John Taylor (I believe that was who it was) saw a vision of bodies
pilled up several stories high in places like Philidelphia and Boston and where
people were dying of some disease that killed within minutes of contracting it.
The scene he conjures up was horrifying.
Then yesterday, while traveling home, I was listening to the news as they
reported that a teenage girl had died from a Bacterial illness 24 hours after
she showed the first symptoms. This bacteria was transfered by body fluids,
specificaly saliva - except this girl had not come in contact with any. She was
a mystery. As an after thought the reporter just happened to remark that this
was the third teenager in two days to die of this disease in that area. No
known antibiotic is effective as yet in treating this bacteria.
> How dare we trust a doctor more than God, or claim that God is
> not necessary because we have a trained physician! How dare we
> rationalize away the need for God with statements like "I'm sure
> God directs the doctor," as if our faith meant nothing!
Studies and data report that Doctors in this country have an average life span
of just 58 years while doctors in other countries die even younger than that.
Most adults in this country have an average span of 73.5. Seems like if you
want to live longer, healthier lives doctors would be a good group of people to
stay away from.
Did you know that over 300,000 people where killed each year in hospitals
throughout the U.S. alone. This was due to miss medication or diagnosis. The
word "killed" was used because these deaths came as direct result of someone's
actions. Brother Brigham may have spoken very prophetically indeed.
> The short answer to your question (what was it again...?)
> is that we MUST turn to God first, or our faith has no
> meaning. Relegating God to second place will not bode
> well for us, either in this life or in the life to come.
I believe that most people do this because they feel that in order for the Lord
to help them that they must exhaust their own resourses (not money though) in
trying to treat the disease before turning to the Lord because of a term we LDS
are often fond of; "the Lord helps those who help themselves". Thats what I've
seen, they think the Lord is so busy why bother him with the trivial stuff, let
waite until we truly need him. What do you think?
Regards
Mike.
Ben Warner
In article <5kfh0c$7...@q.seanet.com>, b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com says...
>> The short answer to your question (what was it again...?)
>> is that we MUST turn to God first, or our faith has no
>> meaning. Relegating God to second place will not bode
>> well for us, either in this life or in the life to come.
>
>I believe that most people do this because they feel that in order for the Lord
>to help them that they must exhaust their own resourses (not money though) in
>trying to treat the disease before turning to the Lord because of a term we LDS
>are often fond of; "the Lord helps those who help themselves". Thats what I've
>seen, they think the Lord is so busy why bother him with the trivial stuff, let
>waite until we truly need him. What do you think?
I find that a common, but (IMHO) completely erroneous assumption,
that we should "not bother the Lord" until we are in absolute crisis.
God has asked us to pray at all times, in all places, over all things,
to cast all burdens upon Him, and reassures us that there is no sparrow
in flight that does not have the watchful eye of God over it.
He also says that one major way to offend God is to not pray, acknowledging
Him, and that many blessings await us that we do not receive because we
do not ask for them.
Again IMO, if an illness is serious enough for a doctor, it is serious enough
for us to do what God asked us to do in the first place -- call for the elders
of the Church to administer to the person, and pray to God for healing.
Then, if directed by the Lord through prayer, the service of a doctor may be
appropriate. But it may not be, and the only way to know if we are following
the best path, or the path that God wants us to follow in this particular
circumstance and at this time, is to ask Him. We are all too comfortable in
turning to a doctor for advice, treatment, and explanation, relying wholly upon
him who is trained medically to save, when our trust has to be not in the arm
of flesh but in the One from whom all life flows and all blessings come.
How will we have the faith to turn to God in the crisis situation, when we
have not turned to Him in every situation, and have not built up a personal
relationship with Him?
I hope this answers your question, as least as far as my thoughts go.
Ben.
David Bowie
Once upon a time, b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com wrote:
<snip>
: Couple that with the latest release of information of the coming battle over
: infectious diseases from over use of anti biotics and we have a stage all set
: up for one of the most bizarre episodes I've ever read about. There is a book
: put out by Desseret Books called "Spiritual Survival in the Last Days" in which
: President John Taylor (I believe that was who it was) saw a vision of bodies
: pilled up several stories high in places like Philidelphia and Boston and where
: people were dying of some disease that killed within minutes of contracting it.
: The scene he conjures up was horrifying.
Horrifying, yes.
Authentic, no.
The story of John Taylor's (alternately reported as Wilford Woodruff's)
"vision" has been rather nicely demonstrated to be non-authentic,
particularly when one notes that John Taylor himself disclaimed it.
References available upon request.
<snip>
David, who remembers JLK saying the "vision" proved Mormons are weird
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Chris Ricker
In article <5kibjg$o...@q.seanet.com>, bdwa...@southeast.net (Ben Warner) wrote:
> I find that a common, but (IMHO) completely erroneous assumption,
> that we should "not bother the Lord" until we are in absolute crisis.
>
> God has asked us to pray at all times, in all places, over all things,
> to cast all burdens upon Him, and reassures us that there is no sparrow
> in flight that does not have the watchful eye of God over it.
While what you say is true, it's certainly the case that we should do
everything in our power as well. Certainly it's not unreasonable for God to
expect us to exercise a little common sense and free agency and, for
example, go to a doctor for some antibiotics when we have pneumonia.
I think our God-given talents, including those of members of the medical
profession, are there to be used....
later,
chris
--
Chris Ricker gt1...@prism.gatech.edu
Ben Warner
[Moderator's Note: Please make sure replies deal with this issue in
the context of Mormonism]
In article <5kjmjn$3...@q.seanet.com>, kab...@r59h31.res.gatech.edu says...
>While what you say is true, it's certainly the case that we should do
>everything in our power as well. Certainly it's not unreasonable for God to
>expect us to exercise a little common sense and free agency and, for
>example, go to a doctor for some antibiotics when we have pneumonia.
>
>I think our God-given talents, including those of members of the medical
>profession, are there to be used....
I appreciate what you are saying. I am trying to make two points:
(1) While penicillin is has certainly been a blessing, penicillin does not replace
prayer, nor (IMHO) should it be administered prior to prayer. If someone is sick
enough to require medical attention, they are *certainly* sick enough to require
prayer and a blessing.
While the above statement is (as far as I can see) theologically indisputable, there is
medical evidence that over-reliance on antibiotics has caused significant harm, not
only in the breeding of "superbugs" but in the incidence of ear infections in children,
for example. Penicillin is not a panacea.
(2) Not all doctors are good, and not all are in tune with the Spirit. There are some
doctors that are just plain evil, as any research into rape and abuse of patients will
attest. There are some that are apathetic, or careless. There are some that have
been led astray by money, HMO's, and pharmaceutical companies, where what is
best for the patient is secondary. (Did you pay attention to the disclosure of HMO
"gag rules"?)
All of which means that blind faith in doctors is NOT justified, theologically or
practically. Are there good doctors? Of course, as a cursory glance of the
Quorum of the Twelve will tell you. Would I see ANY doctor, or follow a
medical recommendation, without prayer? Of course not. To me, that denies
my faith and "puts trust in the arm of flesh" rather than in God.
A third point, that I have not yet tried to make but will leave open for thought,
is this: Does God *require* the use of doctors to heal?
As a side note, can someone provide me with a reference for:
"God helps those that help themselves"?
(Besides the wall of Shoney's buffet).
Ben.
Craig Anderson
David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<5klqa8$e...@q.seanet.com>...
> : President John Taylor (I believe that was who it was) saw a vision of
bodies
> : pilled up several stories high in places like Philidelphia and Boston
and where
> : people were dying of some disease that killed within minutes of
contracting it.
> : The scene he conjures up was horrifying.
> The story of John Taylor's (alternately reported as Wilford Woodruff's)
> "vision" has been rather nicely demonstrated to be non-authentic,
> particularly when one notes that John Taylor himself disclaimed it.
>
> References available upon request.
I be requestin'. Thank ewe!
Craig
Craig Olson
Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> David Bowie <dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> > The story of John Taylor's (alternately reported as Wilford Woodruff's)
> > "vision" has been rather nicely demonstrated to be non-authentic,
> > particularly when one notes that John Taylor himself disclaimed it.
> >
> > References available upon request.
>
> I be requestin'. Thank ewe!
Since I know David is rather occupied at the moment, I'll jump in.
The following is a quote from David's Disputed Mormon Text Archive
( http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/dispute/jtvsnresponse.html ):
=========================================================================
It appears that this "vision" is bogus...and very unlikely to be Taylor's.
Here's what it says in Richard E. Turley's book, Victims, pp 16-17:
On June 15, 1878, assistant church historian Wilford Woodruff (who later
became the church's fourth president) spent most of the day in the
church Historian's Office. Later, he recorded in his journal that while
he was in the office, he "had a vary strange vision Copied." In the same
journal entry, Woodruff transcribed a copy of the peculiar vision.
It described a desolating sickness afflicting communities from Salt Lake
City to the eastern coast of North America and graphically detailed
crimes, carnage, death, and destruction, together with the establishment
of a temple in the New Jerusalem. Because the copy Woodruff made in his
journal was written in the first person, some later readers attributed
the vision to Woodruff.
Several factors, however, suggested Woodruff had not authored the vision
but had simply made a copy of a curious but anonymous document that had
been circulating. His journal entry introducing the vision explained
that he had the vision copied but did not say he had experienced the
vision himself. Although he made the journal copy in mid-1878, the
vision itself was dated December 16, 1877, and nowhere in his journal
for December 1877 did Woodruff, a meticulous journal keeper, record
receiving such a vision. Morover, even though Woodruff's journal copy
of the vision began in the first person with the words, "I went to bed
at the usual hour," Woodruff left a large blank between the words "I"
and "went," showing an intention to fill in the name of the vision's
author when he learned it. Similarly, the church Historian's Office
clerk whom Woodruff had copy the vision added a filing notation to the
document that included a large blank after the words "Vision had by."
Finally, the text of the purported vision claimed its recipient was
"reading the Revelations in the French language" when the vision
occurred, and Woodruff did not know French.
Before long, other copies of the vision were circulating, attributed
this time, however, to Joseph F. Smith...[who] was second counselor in
[the LDS church's] First Presidency on November 17, 1880, when he
publicly disclaimed the vision in an open letter published under the
title "A Fraud" in the church-owned Deseret Evening News. "For some
time," he wrote, "I have heard rumors of a document going the rounds...
purporting to be a 'Vision by Joseph F. Smith.' A copy of this document
was to-day handed to me by a friend. Having read it, I deem it my duty
to announce through the News, that so far as this pretended vision has
been connected with my name it is a fraud. I never had such a vision
and am wholly ignorant of its author, and my name has been used in
connection with it entirely without my knowledge." Smith's letter was
reprinted by a church periodical in England whose editor, also a church
general authority, felt it important to publicize "lest copies of the
forgery therein mentioned, should have found their way this side the
water."
Some footnotes: Turley says the "vision" can be found in Wilford
Woodruff's Journal, June 15, 1878. An office copy was made, too. He
points to Matthias F. Cowley's book, Wilford Woodruff, p 505, Scriptural
and secular prophecies pertaining to the 'last days', pp 114-116, Duane
Crowther's Inspired prophetic warnings, pp 193-96, and Yorganson's
Spiritual survial in the last days, pp 44-48.
He also notes: Because of his well-known connection with publication of
the Book of Mormon in French, John Taylor has been suggested as the
author of the vision. See, e.g., Anthony E. Larson, And the earth shall
reel to and fro, pp 169-74. On the date the vision was purportedly
received, Taylor was the church's senior apostle and would soon become
its president. Though Taylor oversaw the translation of the French Book
of Mormon, his French was limited, and the actual translation work was
carried out by others under him...The fact that persons close to Taylor
in the church leadership vehemently denounced the vision as fraudulent
cast doubt on Taylor's authorship.
======================================================================
Craig, on the eve of destruction.
--
Eliminate %spam% to reply
mailto: clo@%spam%netins.net
http://www.netins.net/showcase/gershom/
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Ben Warner (bdwa...@southeast.net) having written:
[snip]
Great comments about our tendency to go see a doctor, before even
thinking to pray about it. I guess the reason I am reluctant to
ask God, is that sometimes I don't want to be disappointed by going
to the Doctor afterwards. It's almost like saying "well I didn't have
enough faith to heal myself, though the doctor may indeed be an answer
to prayer." Can you see where there is some ambiguity?
Further, I don't know about you, but I know of a number of times when
priesthood blessings have been given in full confidence of faith, only
to have them NOT come true. I think sometimes it's easier to reconcile
avoiding the blessing and going to the doctor, than it is to chance an
incident that might cause us to rethink our faith in the priesthood
healing.
Okay... so my comments only confirm precisely what you are stating...
We creatures of doubt... :)
>As a side note, can someone provide me with a reference for:
>"God helps those that help themselves"?
>(Besides the wall of Shoney's buffet).
This is exactly why I love this newsgroup. I have taken this
cliche' for gospel more times than I know, but come to think of
it, the reference is hardly scripture. ;)
Great points! Ben!!
Best regards,
--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)
b35...@vaxc.phx1.aro.allied.com
In article <5kibjg$o...@q.seanet.com>, bdwa...@southeast.net (Ben Warner) writes:
> In article <5kfh0c$7...@q.seanet.com>, b35...@vaxa.phx1.aro.allied.com says...
[snip]
>>I believe that most people do this because they feel that in order for the Lord
>>to help them that they must exhaust their own resourses (not money though) in
>>trying to treat the disease before turning to the Lord because of a term we LDS
>>are often fond of; "the Lord helps those who help themselves". Thats what I've
>>seen, they think the Lord is so busy why bother him with the trivial stuff, let
>>waite until we truly need him. What do you think?
> I find that a common, but (IMHO) completely erroneous assumption,
> that we should "not bother the Lord" until we are in absolute crisis.
>
> God has asked us to pray at all times, in all places, over all things,
> to cast all burdens upon Him, and reassures us that there is no sparrow
> in flight that does not have the watchful eye of God over it.
I personally agree with you on this although I find myself doing what I have
noted before, at times. Dopey me!
> He also says that one major way to offend God is to not pray, acknowledging
> Him, and that many blessings await us that we do not receive because we
> do not ask for them.
>
> Again IMO, if an illness is serious enough for a doctor, it is serious enough
> for us to do what God asked us to do in the first place -- call for the elders
> of the Church to administer to the person, and pray to God for healing.
> Then, if directed by the Lord through prayer, the service of a doctor may be
> appropriate. But it may not be, and the only way to know if we are following
> the best path, or the path that God wants us to follow in this particular
> circumstance and at this time, is to ask Him. We are all too comfortable in
> turning to a doctor for advice, treatment, and explanation, relying wholly upon
> him who is trained medically to save, when our trust has to be not in the arm
> of flesh but in the One from whom all life flows and all blessings come.
My gosh Ben, You've nail the point dead center.
> How will we have the faith to turn to God in the crisis situation, when we
> have not turned to Him in every situation, and have not built up a personal
> relationship with Him?
How will we indeed. I find that I have a hard time communicating with people
with whom I'm not familiar. Not because I don't have good comunicatin' skills
but because I have this thing about asking people for things when I don't know
them or when they are a boss's boss whom I've had little contact with (like
asking for a raise).
The point of open communication with the Lord is well put. As LDS we have the
obligation, IMO, to have such a relationship. Some times I find myself just
talking to the Lord while driving to and from work (keeps me from blowing up at
some of those Crazies out there on the freeways) and by the time I get home I
find that I have achieved some semblence of peace.
With your post Ben I find that I'm recommiting myself to doing exactly as you
have said. Good job, I salute you. Keep up the good work.
Regards,
Mike.
G Smith
Ben Warner (bdwa...@southeast.net) wrote:
: In article <5kjmjn$3...@q.seanet.com>, kab...@r59h31.res.gatech.edu says...
:
: >I think our God-given talents, including those of members of the medical
: >profession, are there to be used....
:
: I appreciate what you are saying. I am trying to make two points:
:
: (1) While penicillin is has certainly been a blessing, penicillin does not
replace prayer, nor (IMHO) should it be administered prior to prayer.
If someone is sick
: enough to require medical attention, they are *certainly* sick enough to
require prayer and a blessing.
:
: While the above statement is (as far as I can see) theologically
indisputable,
I think there is ample precedent in the form of statements from leaders of
the Church which would argue that this is _not_ (as far as I can see :>)
"theologically indisputable". I tried to post these quotes earlier, but
it didn't seem to enter this thread; hopefully the moderators will smile
upon me and allow them to go through.....
This thread began when
Spencer Shellman (shel...@burgoyne.com) wrote:
:
: I recently read this intriguing quote from Brigham Young (JD 15:226).
: "Who is the real doctor? That man who knows by the Spirit of revelation
: what ails an individual, and by the same Spirit nows what medicine to
: administer. That is the real doctor, the others are quacks."
Bear in mind that there were many schools of medical thought at the time.
The "orthodox" doctors were little better than quacks, dosing everyone
with purgatives, calomel, etc. There were also Thompsonian Herbalists,
who favored such things as lobelia et al.
If you read more of the context of Brigham's remark, it perhaps makes more
sense:
"Let me tell you about doctoring, because I'm acquainted with it, and know
just exactly what constitutes a good doctor in physic. It is that man or
woman, who, by revelation, or we may call it intuitive inspiration, is
capable of administering medicine to assist the human system when it is
besieged by the enemy called Disease; but if they have not that
manifestation, they had better let the sick person alone...[quote then
continues as you list it above]". (JD 15:225-226)
So, it would seem to me that BY is advocating that only those who have
accurate knowledge ought to be physicians--it is very good medical AND
religious advice to leave anyone else out of your care. In the first half
of the 19th century, leaving physicians and going soley with God was
definately the best bet. As he says, he wants only those who _know_ by
"revelation" or "intuitive inspiration" to be administering medical care.
If all truth procedes from God (and there are numerous quotes which
attibute such scientific advances such as satellites, airplanes, etc. to
His inspiration) could not medical science fit this category? Further
quotes from Brigham and others would support this thesis, IMO:
Writing to the Mormon Batallion, BY advised them to stay away from the
battle surgeon (who was nick-named 'Dr Death', and only gave calomel) by
saying, "If you're sick, live by faith, and let the surgeon's medicine
alone if you want to live, using such herbs and mild food as are at your
disposal" [Quoted in Tyler, D., Sgt. 1969 [1881] A concise history of the
Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War, 1846-1847. Glorieta, New Mexico:Rio
Grande Press, 146).
[Calomel, incidentally, was probably the cause
of Alvin Smith's death, since an autopsy revealed that he had gangrene of
the intestine from it following an attack of what is now thought to have
been gastroenteritis. The Smiths and others had little reason to trust or
like the standard 'doctors' of the day, who were largely unregulated and
largely ignorant.]
Joseph Smith also made similar remarks regarding physicains who were
ignorant: "All ye doctors who are fools and not well read and who do not
understand the human constitution stop your practice." (HC 6:59)
It bears remembering that the herbalists (Thompsonians) had no education,
they merely bought a right to use the patent medicine through the mail.
The orthodox "heroics" believed in the four humors, and bleeding, cupping,
purging, etc.
Many modern advocates of various health approaches aren't educated either,
and following their advice isn't always wise.
By the 1870s, BY's attitude began to change. [The quote which started this
thread dates from around that period, IIRC.] Why? Well, the Civil War
lead to some major advances in medicine--significantly, the scientific
method began to be applied to medical care in the US. Physicians trained
in the eastern US began to arrive in Utah with the railroad, and they had
been trained as "allopaths", which was a different model than the heroic
medicine of the former orthodox practitioners.
["Allopaths" is actually a term of derision given to them by their
opponents--you still see the same usage today occassionally. I use it
here to distinguish them from the botanics or the heroics, but it was
orignally a term of scorn given to them because they believed that
disease was caused by "other"(="allo") things and that disease had more
than one etiology, or causitive agent.]
: While reading this I wondered to myself, "Is this true today? Does the
: Lord expect us to seek his inspiration in the treatment of disease and
: affliction, or is he so impressed by this century's advances in medical
: technology that he figures we can handle it on our own?"
: Any thoughts?
Brigham wrote the following as well: "If we are sick, and ask the Lord to
heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to
my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord
to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and
casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy
that comes within the range of my knowledge, [or, I might suggest, the
knowledge of trained professionals?] and to ask my Father in Heaven, in
the name of Jesus Christ, to sanctify that application to the healing of
my body; to another this may appear inconsistent" [JD 4:24-25]
Seems to me that this argues that BY thinks that God wants us to do
everything wise that we can, and that this is part of the process of
trusting in God--using the gifts which he had given. This isn't trusting
in the arm of flesh if we remember the source of all knowledge--any more
than it is trusting in the arm of flesh to ask God to give us food and a
harvest and then go plant. It makes about as much theological sense to
expect God to plant our fields as it does for Him to cure our disease by
divine fiat if we have a medical therapy that will work. But we must
remember that we hare behooven to God for all the knowledge that we have,
and be grateful accordingly. We may of course pray, but we must pray AS
WE DO THAT WHICH WE CAN for ourselves.
BY practiced what he preached--in 1871, he called Willard Richard's eldest
son to go study at Bellvue Medical College in New York. Seymour Young
(Brigham's nephew) was also sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons
in New York. And, in his last illness [he died of peritonitis from a
ruptured appendix] he was attended by 4 physicians--all trained in the new
allopathic tradition of scientific biomedicine. [The doctors were
Seymour, Washington Anderson, and two non-member phyicians, the Benedict
brothers].
Members of the Church then (like some now, unfortunately) found this
disconcerting--James Henry Moyle wrote "When our neighborhood learned that
the President of the Church and the chief officers of the Church had
regularly attended physicians whose services were actually called into use
even when the sickness was not serious, it was something of a shock." The
members of the Church had been warned about ther herbalist and heroic
quacks of the earlier time. They had not yet (and some have still not
yet) adapted to the idea that God and His Prophets seem to want us to do
everything that will help, and trust in Him. Note that BY and the leaders
called on the services even when they weren't "serious".
The first Church-sponsored hospital in Utah was entirely staffed by
allopaths; it was built in 1882. The First Presidency and the entire
Quorum of the Twelve paid the $1/year fee to belong; the hospital didn't
gain a large following among the lay membership, however, and so closed
down.
Pres. Wilford Woodruff realized that the Saints were being somewhat
tradition-boung [despite the clear example of the Church leadership] and
so went to the settlements with Zina Young (RS Gen. Pres) to call three
people per ward to SLC to study the 'new' medicine under Dr. Ellis Shipp,
an allopath.
Pres. Joseph F. Smith, in 1902, said "let a reputable and faithful
physicain be consulted. By all means, let the quack, the traveling fakir,
the cure-all nostrum, and the indiscriminating dosing with patent medicine
be abolished like so much trash." [IE, 5:624, 1902] Certain approaches
to health today strike me as fitting under this advice as well.
Elder James E. Talmage wrote (in 1921) about how healing by faith AND
medicine were not incompatible. He wrote: "Because we know that there is
a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the world was and when we
attain any blessing it is by obedience to that law upon which it is
predicated and the law is, in the instance under consideration [ie medical
care] that we shall do all we can of ourselves....We must do all we can,
and _then_ ask the Lord to do the rest, such as we cannot do. Hence we
hold the medical and surgical profession in high regard...When we have
done all we can, then the Divine Power will be directly applicable and
operative." [Desert News, Dec. 17, 1921, Sec. 4, p. 11]
Notice the order of things: FIRST you do all you can; THEN you ask for the
Lord to make up the slack. Hence my contention that there IS theological
justification for seeking out competent care FIRST, and then asking the
Lord to bless us. This is not trusting in the arm of flesh if we remembr
from whence all true knowledge comes, and are grateful accordingly.
If there is medical care available, then using
it is part of what WE must do to 'call God from His hiding place'. We may
well, of course, pray as we seek to do everything that we can that our
efforts will be blessed and propered, just as we might pray as we sow our
fields that the weather will permit us to do so. We don't then, however,
stop with the field half sown! :)
The shift should be obvious--when there's nothing of real value
in mankind's medicine, it is foolish (both medically and spiritually) to
trust it, because it isn't true. When it is _true_, though, then it is
one manifestation of God's wisdom, power, and intelligence to His
children, and we are being blind and ungrateful if we do not accept it.
We are also being lazy, in a sense, if we expect the Lord's intervention
before we make means of _interventiosn which He has already provided us,
in the form of modern medicine_.
In response to much of the nutritional and health faddism and quackery
promoted in Utah (and elsewhere) under the guise of the LDS Church, the
First Presidency received a number of inquiries. They quoted Elder
Talmage as above, and then wrote:
"The Church, of course, deplores the patronage of health or medical
practices which might be considered ethically or legally questionable.
People with serious illnesses should consult competent physicans, licensed
under the laws of the land to practice medicine." [Editorial, Feb 19,
1977, Church News.]
As the flurry of false claims (many made with religious overtones) did not
abate, a second statement was comissioned by the 1st Presidency, and
written by a member of the 12. The 1st Pres. and Presiding Bishop's
office both indicated that it was representative of the Church's
official possition. It read:
"Health Fads May Hurt--
"Frequently fads are advocated under the guise of the Word of Wisdom by
unauthorized persons with unwarranted claims respecting health...They have
displayed pictures of the Presidents of the Church or of the temple to
give an 'authoritative' backdrop to their teachings. Their exhibits of
foods and remedies are enhanced by copies of the scriptures placed there
to give further credibility to their projects. The Church officially
disclaims all such pretensions. Also it completely disclaims any
sponsorship or endorsement of such teachers, remedies, foods, or fads...
"***To refuse to accept assistance from highly skilled men and women may
be to reject the very help that could save a life. Some patients are
known to have died from diseases which 'nature remedies' could not relieve
but which proven medical practices could have cured...Is it wise to turn
our backs upon medical advances and place our hopes and our lives in the
hands of unproven practitioners? Would we reject other forms of true
scientific advancement? Would we do without telephones, radios, or
airplanes? Why then should we reject proven heath care provided as a
result of years of
research? ...
"Latter-day Saints may well follow the prophets in matters of
health as in other things. Leaders of the Church accept sound advice from
acknowledged professional men. They themselves submit to surgery
[President Kimball anyone?] and other forms of treatment as
needed, and their lives have been extended as a result. Is not their
example worthy of emulation?***" [Church News, June 18, 1977.] - emphasis
added.
Note that in the above quote "unproven" therapies are discouraged, and
listening to competent professionals is a means whereby the Lord
lengthens the lifespan of His prophets.
We in the West currently enjoy a greater abundence, variety, and quality
of food available to us. Would we reject this blessing, simply because
the Lord acted through mortal men and their efforts to help bring it
about? It is slightly ironic that we are having this discussion by
INTERNET--a marvelous collection of technology and science which we don't
hesitate to use, and yet we remain hesitant to benefit fully from the
blessings which the Lord has granted us in the physical area which
probably means the most to us--our health!
--------------
Much of the information above was from an article by Norman Lee Smith,
M.D., called "Why Are Mormons So Susceptible to Medical & Nutrtional
Quackery?" I recommend it--it's in Issue I of the BYU's "Collegiam
Aescepulatam" (sp?) journal for physicians (pp. 29-43). It is a good
historical overview of many of these issues. Hopefully the quotes from
the leaders of the Church speak for themselves. [The journal may now be
defunct, but this article was in its premier issue.]
-----
It strikes me that in light of the above instruction (fairly unequivocal
throughout this century) we are not following the MODERN prophets if we
disparage the blessing of scientific medical care, but are rather stuck
listening to advice which (while life-saving and applicable at the time it
was given) no longer applies to our day. We do not build Arks as Noah
did, but it was imperative that the people of Noah's day listen to _him_.
What else are modern prophets for, if not to give advice and council which
is relevent to our _current_ situation? Clearly, the situation has
changed, and the prophets' advice changed as soon as the situation
permitted it to do so. Many other religious groups have not been so quick
to change, but that is the problem one encounters without _continuing
revelation_.
------
Ben wrote further:
: All of which means that blind faith in doctors is NOT justified,
theologically
Indeed, one might argue that there is NO theological justification for
blind faith in anything. Indeed, it was _blind faith_ in incompetent
physicians that the earlier quotes by Joseph and Brigham were targetted
at. They were not worthy of faith or trust, because they were not using
methods which had been demonstrated to be effective (unlike scientific
health care today, which the Brethren seem to have a much higher opinion
of).
or
: practically. Are there good doctors? Of course, as a cursory glance of
: the
: Quorum of the Twelve will tell you. Would I see ANY doctor, or follow a
: medical recommendation, without prayer?
Of course we may/must pray about anything that concerns us. Perhaps the
secret lies in finding a physician whom we feel we can trust (confirming
through prayer, etc.) Since the prophets have spoken rather clearly on
the use of modern health care, it would seem that our resonsibility is to
obtain testimonies of their instructions for ourselves, and find a
practitioner who we feel merits the trust espoused by the 1st Presidency
and the Twelve.
: Of course not. To me, that denies
: my faith and "puts trust in the arm of flesh" rather than in God.
Perhaps it is less like "trusting in the arm of flesh" if we always
remembr from whence their knowledge and expertise comes, and to whom we
owe the gratitude for both our knowledge of it and its efficacy?
: A third point, that I have not yet tried to make but will leave open for
thought,
: is this: Does God *require* the use of doctors to heal?
I would think that the quotes above from Joseph F. Smith, James Talmage,
and the Desseret News editorials strongly argue that the answer to this
question is a hearty YES, in most cases in which they are available. BY
quotes above also would support this reading, IMO. Just as God _requires_
the use of planting crops to eat food, in most circumstances. He can feed
prophets by birds bringing bread, multiply loaves and fishes, etc. But
those are the significant exceptions, and not the rule. He has taught us
how to feed ourselves and obtain food; if we consistently neglect that
knowledge and gift, what business do we have begging a greater gift,
unless we find ourselves in a situation over which we have no control and
in which we need his help?
Or, to use another example: with the question
of a year's supply of food. If we have not availed ourselves of the
opportunities given to listen to the prophets and provide for our needs in
a quite prosaic, worldly way [ie storing food bought at a store] why would
we expect that in the crisis that might come to our family that God will
make food appear by extraordinary means? Does food storage mean we trust
in the arm of flesh? No, it means we trust the prophets who instruct us
to use the means at our disposal (grocery stores, gardens, etc.) to
provide for needs in difficult circumstances.
In Joseph Smith's day, the doctors were not competent; they did not have
the knowledge required. Now that God has seen fit (in His mercy) to grant
knowledge to mankind, he expects us to use it when we can. At least,
that's been both my experience _and_ my reading of the above quotes.
:
: As a side note, can someone provide me with a reference for:
: "God helps those that help themselves"?
I would think that the above quotes from leaders of the Church might
qualify, at least in the health arena? :) A summation more in the spirit
of their intent might be:"God helps those who help themselves to those
things and people which He has already provided for their help".
: Ben.
----------------------
As a side note, in the interests of accuracy:
One poster (don't remember who) has argued that MDs have less life
exepectancy than the general population.
This is not true--MD's have _longer_ life
expectancy. The figure quoted [Age 58] has turned up on a tape by
'Dr. Wallach', called "Dead Doctors Don't Lie". The tape has been
demonstrated to contain many false claims. It is not, in my view, a
reliable source of information--Wallach is a veterenarian, and also makes
many false or unsubstantiated claims about his qualifications. Readers
wanting reliable health information could probably do better than him or
his like--perhaps the above quotes suggest some perspectives for doing
so wisely in harmony with the Restored Gospel and teachings of the living
prophets and apostles.
Please cc: by e-mail any reply or request for further clarification to
me if you want a rapid response--I don't check the newsgroup very often,
and finals are bearing down upon me!
;-)
Sincerely,
Gregory L. Smith [no relation to Joseph!]
gls...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
[France Paris Mission 1991-1993--Sois sage!]