Holy Ghost - AWOL again...

[_malkie]

In other words there's just no pleasing him - we live or die at his whim.

clearly a false dichotomy
and a sad commentary on the usual level of discourse from the majority of bitter critics.

1. To avoid a dichotomy: we live or die or remain in a state of suspended animation at his whim (or, if you prefer, at his pleasure)
2. I don't recall having commented on the usual level of discourse from the majority of bitter critics, so I'm not sure how you came to regard my statement as such commentary.

by the way, are you disputing that your god has the power of life and death over humans? or that he uses that power? or what?

[_lulu]

Elder Schenk’s parents have flown to Brazil to consult with doctors and to be with their son at this critical time.

Who paid for the plane tickets?

[_subgenius]

If indeed the Lord exists, that is precisely the case.

Its also possible that "the Lord" exists but that the LDS got it all wrong. Elohim is one of the least believable, inconsistent, douche-baggish, deities available to worship...I would rather worship my kitchen sink, at least the answers I would get would be consistent...

right, like its the sink you would worship



besides, maybe you should focus first on the questions....

[_subgenius]

Obviously you view it as an accident that was planned out by God in order to punish the Elder with severe head injuries for spending an extra 13 minutes on scripture study instead of proselytizing (why God chose not to punish other elders for committing similar or worse infractions is just one of those mysteries of godliness).

obviously, you are drawing your own conclusions...i never said anything like this

My thesis is that the accident was random.

and my thesis is that all accidents are by definition are random...thus my notation about "redundancy".

Hope this helps.

...

[_subgenius]

My thesis is that The Lord welched on the deal where He provides protection for people on His errand.

again, we have no evidence that the Lord did not uphold His end of the bargain, or that the Elder did not break a covenant.
The Lord may well have prompted the Elder and then the Elder may have denied the prompting, etc..
I do not consider there to be enough "facts in evidence" to draw the conclusion you are promoting.
As a hypothetical, my scenario carries as much weight as yours

[_Darth J]

I think the take-away we get from Subgenius is that if you live you are righteous, but if you die you are a sinner.

you are becoming quite reliable at drawing poor conclusions.

The major fallacy in the OP, and in your post, is that an incredible amount of assumptions are being made because of the lack of any real facts which would be pertinent in supporting the cynicism which is intended by the OP.

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.

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.

[_subgenius]

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.

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.

[_Drifting]

Subgenius,

Hypothetically. Lets say your small child was walking into a road where they were going to be run down by oncoming traffic. You make the appropriate parental promptings because you can see what is going to happen. However your child, for whatever reason (mischief, rebellion, deafness, confusion etc) continues walking into the road. Do you just say "oh well, they didn't hear me so it's their own tough luck"? Or do you rush to save the child doing everything in your power to prevent the accident happening regardless of the child's righteousness?

My point being that if God were God then He had the power to protect this Elder. Not only did He have the power, He had the moral obligation because the lad was on the Lords errand (Mondon didn't say you neede to be doing so with a certain level of righteousness).

God did the equivalent of you letting your child run into oncoming traffic because you thought they needed to be taught a lesson.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius,
Hypothetically. Lets say your small child was walking into a road where they were going to be run down by oncoming traffic. You make the appropriate parental promptings because you can see what is going to happen. However your child, for whatever reason (mischief, rebellion, deafness, confusion etc) continues walking into the road. Do you just say "oh well, they didn't hear me so it's their own tough luck"? Or do you rush to save the child doing everything in your power to prevent the accident happening regardless of the child's righteousness?

in this scenario, i would run after the child - obviously
however - the child may choose to run away as i approach, and thus get hit.
But your hypothetical is flawed...it erroneously equates God's love and wisdom with the temporal desires and fears of man.
Though there are some similarities between parental love on this earth and God's love for us, they can not be "boiled" down as you are suggesting.
That being said - if i knew that my child was going to be hit by a vehicle, survive, and gain a greater understanding or wisdom, then i would likely let the child get hit.
Often parents let their children "learn" when they know the outcome of the perceived "accident". Many parents will easily confirm the notion of letting the child learn for themselves.
Unfortunately your hypothetical relies on me not knowing what the result of the accident will be...for both the Elder and all those involved.

My point being that if God were God then He had the power to protect this Elder. Not only did He have the power, He had the moral obligation because the lad was on the Lords errand (Mondon didn't say you neede to be doing so with a certain level of righteousness).

God, obviously, has the power to protect everyone from every "accident".
You assume that this particular Elder was not only due protection but was unconditionally entitled to it...both of these assumptions are rather difficult to support given the facts known.

God did the equivalent of you letting your child run into oncoming traffic because you thought they needed to be taught a lesson.

an absurd conclusion, my friend.

There is also the fundamental notion that "Thy will be done".

[_Drifting]

Actually subgenis, I'm not sure my conclusion is absurd. Rather it seems to be doctrinally based.

Mormonism believes that God allows bad things to happen to good people. Which means that when this Elder got hit God had the wherewithal to prevent it (regardless of the Elders righteousness and obedience or Spiritual listening skills) but, for His purposes, chose not to.

I guess as parents we all need to allow our children to make mistakes so that they learn and grow. However, I think death or serious injury is perhaps beyond what I see as acceptable risk in this earthly learning process.

From God's perspective, I get it that Mormos perceive that death, injury etc IS an acceptable risk in order that one learn and grow Eternally.


That said, in the face of yet another Elder lost in battle, Monsons sound bite of "when you are on the Lords errand you are entitled to His help" should perhaps carry a health warning...