NOM

I heard most of a Saturday night (I think) conference talk that was running in the background. I'm not sure who it was but he told the story - a common conference theme these days - of giving his father a blessing, but watching him die anyway, as if the priesthood blessing had no effect at all. Long story short, after searching his soul and the scriptures he finally came to the realization that his father HAD been healed. WT everloving F?

This is like those Eyering talks where he reinvents death after a priesthood blessing as a miracle, or Bednar's "do you have the faith to NOT be healed?"

Yet members seem to actually buy these demonstrations of the wholesale failure of priesthood power as inspirational confirmation that the power is real. How? Why? Is this Bizarro World?

I'm reminded of Humpty Dumpty in Alice In Wonderland:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Typical GA: "A miracle is what I say it is, nothing more, nothing less."

Yet here am I defining God as truth and love. (see below) I play the same games they do.
dang it.

I may be beating myself up over defining god too much. God is one of those things that is defined in a myriad of ways.
Getting back to miracles- they have a relatively standard definition:
mir·a·cle
/ˈmirək(ə)l/
noun
1.a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Unless one has an agenda for redefining miracles. If an LDS Church leader is trying to explain why today's apostles aren't healing the sick and raising the dead like the New Testament apostles did, he might try redifining miracles. A miracle now may be something that makes a person feel warm fuzzies.
I haven't read the talk, so maybe I'm being too critical.