Holy Ghost - AWOL again...

[_Buffalo]

Mormons don't believe in accidents, as everything that happens has some purpose behind it. And yet, they still use the word accident. My use of the word random addresses this issue.

First - a more obvious backpedal has yet to be posted.....your use of the word "random" was simply redundant, and rather than admit any sort fallacy being possible within one of your posts, you would rather revise history.
Second - Your statement about Mormon beliefs is incorrect.
Omniscience.
Genesis 18:21
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

"The question is not whether God knows a determinate future but whether there is a determinate future to know."

Orthodox Mormons do believe in an omniscient God, your proof-text notwithstanding. Simply attend church on the first Sunday of any month and listen as real Mormons explain to you how God was behind every significant and insignificant event in their lives the past week.

The question remains - was the accident random, or did divine providence arrange it? You clearly support the latter view.

[_subgenius]

Orthodox Mormons do believe in an omniscient God, your proof-text notwithstanding. Simply attend church on the first Sunday of any month and listen as real Mormons explain to you how God was behind every significant and insignificant event in their lives the past week.

i am not convinced by your "anecdotal" evidence...got any actual doctrine to support this?
My 1st sunday experiences have not been like yours....apparently.

The question remains - was the accident random, or did divine providence arrange it? You clearly support the latter view.

i have not taking that stance. if anything i have simply noted that God may have actually warned individuals who disregarded that warning, or that He may have provided protection for one who denied that protection.
The facts in the OP are hardly sufficient for any meaningful conclusion.
Otherwise, my position is "clearly" one that has yet to put God in a position of Predetermination. (and between us, i wont put Him there)

[_Sethbag]

right, like its the sink you would worship

You can keep the bathwater - I choose the babe.

[_Buffalo]

Orthodox Mormons do believe in an omniscient God, your proof-text notwithstanding. Simply attend church on the first Sunday of any month and listen as real Mormons explain to you how God was behind every significant and insignificant event in their lives the past week.

i am not convinced by your "anecdotal" evidence...got any actual doctrine to support this?
My 1st sunday experiences have not been like yours....apparently.

Are you active?

The question remains - was the accident random, or did divine providence arrange it? You clearly support the latter view.

i have not taking that stance. if anything i have simply noted that God may have actually warned individuals who disregarded that warning, or that He may have provided protection for one who denied that protection.
The facts in the OP are hardly sufficient for any meaningful conclusion.
Otherwise, my position is "clearly" one that has yet to put God in a position of Predetermination. (and between us, i wont put Him there)

I'm glad you've abandoned your former position. It was distasteful.

[_subgenius]

Are you active?

very much so...currently serving as EQP.

I'm glad you've abandoned your former position. It was distasteful.

read it again, i have abandoned nothing.....not even you

[_Darth J]

Once again, this is what you said:

"you are 'entitled' but that does not necessarily mean you will receive it or that you will accept it."

According to you, it is possible that people are entitled to God's help but he still does not give it.

and once again we see you impose your own meaning on an otherwise clear statement.
You conveniently, or erroneously, confuse "receive it" to mean "give it". As if to imply that if one is not receiving then surely one must have been given.
In other words, God may "give" something that you actually do not "receive". The church has clear teachings on this, for example, the more one ignores the Spirit's promptings the more one becomes unable to hear those promptings, and the more that the Spirit will begin to withdraw.
This is a clear contradiction of your original "illusory" claim.
Obviously presuppositions may be influencing your perceptions of what is being written.

The only presupposition influence what I read is the grammar of the English language.

You said "receive it or that you will accept it." The disjunctive ("or") means that you are positing alternatives. I am not confusing receiving something with having something given to you. The word "receive" means that something is given to you.

receive

1.
to take into one's possession (something offered or delivered): to receive many gifts.
2.
to have (something) bestowed, conferred, etc.: to receive an honorary degree.
3.
to have delivered or brought to one: to receive a letter.
4.
to get or be informed of: to receive instructions; to receive news.
5.
to be burdened with; sustain: to receive a heavy load.

If you don't receive something, then it means that the something in question is not offered/delivered/bestowed/conferred.

The plain meaning of what you said is that this kid got hurt either because God did not offer/deliver/bestow/confer any help, or because God did offer it but the kid rejected it. This allows the possibility that God does not help people who are entitled to it.

But if you are going to dismiss analysis of a claim because "an incredible amount of assumptions are being made" and "the lack of any real facts," then you have pretty much forfeited talking about Mormonism's truth claims in general.

i dismiss the "analysis" of the claim because it was erroneous in its foundation and wrought with cynicism - and was not put forth as an analysis, or even an honest criticism for that matter...it was simply meant to be vitriol.

It is not possible for you to offer any facts to be analyzed. Show me the objective evidence that can be used to analyze anything about whether God does or does not help LDS missionaries.

The only thing you can offer is:

1. If a missionary doesn't get hurt, then God was helping him.
2. If a missionary doesn't get hurt, then God was not helping him.
3. If God was not helping him, then it's because: (a) the missionary wasn't worthy, or (b) he was worthy but did not accept the help (which is indistinguishable from (a)), or (c) God must have had some higher purpose.

This catch-all Delphic prophecy (an after-the-fact prophecy) is absolutely useless in determining anything about God or about events that happen in the real world.

[_Drifting]

Subgenius,

I think it is safe to say that when Monson speaks very little thinking has been done.

Although a person on the Lords errand is entitled to His protection, the sad reality is that they are no more likely to receive it than the atheist going about his daily business.

A more honest (and factually accurate) statement from Monson would have been "When you are on the Lords errand your soul is entitled to His spiritual protection, but physically...you're on your own..."

[_subgenius]

The only presupposition influence what I read is the grammar of the English language.

enter the grammar nazi with feeble dissection...now!

You said "receive it or that you will accept it." The disjunctive ("or") means that you are positing alternatives. I am not confusing receiving something with having something given to you. The word "receive" means that something is given to you.

actually, "or" is a conjunction in grammar and is disjunctive only as a logical operation, the latter being something vague to your post. Though it may, at times, be considered an exclusive disjunctive in grammar, that is not the case in statement. The alternatives are idiomatic.
for example one may "receive" a package, which means to "take delivery"...in contrast one may "refuse" (or not accept) delivery and thus not receive the package.

If you don't receive something, then it means that the something in question is not offered/delivered/bestowed/conferred.

an obvious statement to confirm a lack of understanding for the definitions of "receive", "accept", "offer", and "delivery"

The plain meaning of what you said is that this kid got hurt either because God did not offer/deliver/bestow/confer any help, or because God did offer it but the kid rejected it. This allows the possibility that God does not help people who are entitled to it.

false dichotomy, try again.
(and once again we see DJ tell posters what they "really mean")

It is not possible for you to offer any facts to be analyzed. Show me the objective evidence that can be used to analyze anything about whether God does or does not help LDS missionaries.

"objective" evidence...why so specific?
oh, that's right...because you truly believe that "objective" has a special loophole for you....yet it serves only to wrap a blanket of fail around your shivering argument.

The only thing you can offer is:

1. If a missionary doesn't get hurt, then God was helping him.
2. If a missionary doesn't get hurt, then God was not helping him.
3. If God was not helping him, then it's because: (a) the missionary wasn't worthy, or (b) he was worthy but did not accept the help (which is indistinguishable from (a)), or (c) God must have had some higher purpose.

perfect example of typical DJ revision for his own position, yet inadequate in execution (expected and quickly becoming the assumption).
#2 is contrary to the correct and adequate notion of God.
#3 is invalid due to the incorrect assumption made in #2

This catch-all Delphic prophecy (an after-the-fact prophecy) is absolutely useless in determining anything about God or about events that happen in the real world.

agreed... unfortunately you are the only one making that "prophecy"....obviously you have neither been set apart for this purpose nor received any keys - thanks for the affirmation.

[_Buffalo]

read it again, i have abandoned nothing.....not even you

So you ARE arguing that God called a hit on the Mormon missionary. Interesting.