Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
If everything you say is spot on true it's still bat-shit, goon-ball bonkers - if not more so. Which is MY point.
Having been raised without the slightest inkling of how Catholicism works, the whole idea of saints seems weird to me. But, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "crazy": I think there's a least a modicum of internal consistency to the story you shared.
But, I have to agree with you about the notion of "miracles." There's no end of people out there claiming that God healed their child when the doctors said there was no chance. To me, the most reasonable conclusion is that some error was made in either assessing, presenting or interpreting what the child's "chances" were. All the "miracle" healing stories from the past involve people being suddenly raised to perfect health from their deathbeds: but nowadays, most medical miracles seem to involve a few days of bed rest with an IV drip in addition to the prayers of loved ones.
I remember being taught about alleged miracles that happened in the early parts of Mormon history, such as the
miracle of the gulls. As a kid, I was taught that in 1848 (the Mormons' first year in Utah), a huge flock of gulls miraculously appeared out of nowhere to save the Mormons' first harvest from swarms of crickets, and everyone praised God for His greatness.
Of course, despite being very prolific diary-writers, the early Mormons seem to have meticulously avoided leaving any firsthand attestations of the alleged miracle, preferring to instead let it be gradually mythologized over the pulpit a few decades later.
-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.