Because maybe God meant them to be sent there for the time they were there and then have them sent somewhere else? Doesn't seem difficult to figure out this one at all.
Sure, but then that would mean God meant for those people to catch the Ebola virus and die.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Bazooka wrote: Sure, but then that would mean God meant for those people to catch the Ebola virus and die.
The article says that two Mormons died, not two Mormon missionaries. I'm sure if two Mormon missionaries had died it would have said that. The people who died weren't called there, they just lived there.
maklelan wrote:I didn't know the apostles claimed to have unmitigated and unilateral access to the future.
Perhaps President Benson hinted at this in his speech, Fourteen Points to the Exaltation of the Prophets.
The fact that Elder J. Reuben Clark was handing out copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, up until WWII would suggest their access is as limited as everyone else. History is forgiving though, he even has a Law School named after him. Maybe not as catchy as the O.P. Rockwell College of Law, but almost.
Bazooka wrote: Sure, but then that would mean God meant for those people to catch the Ebola virus and die.
The article says that two Mormons died, not two Mormon missionaries. I'm sure if two Mormon missionaries had died it would have said that. The people who died weren't called there, they just lived there.
I wasn't saying any missionaries died. I'm saying that if God meant from the start for those missionaries to be called there and then moved, as you suggested, then God used the suffering and deaths of local people to facilitate His plan for those missionaries.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
MG Your argument or defense for the brethren on ebola is the large number of mishies out there. An argument of volume against an invisible enemy, a virus or microbe. Hey God should be able to take care of large volumes of mishies and members because he has the all the sparrows numbered, right?
Let us review another situation with God and the brethren. How about the Hoffman snafu? The brethren and God dealing with one man, one subject, one tangible visible object and the score is the brethren zero, God zero, and Hoffman one. The truth is God does not intervene. The brethren do not meet with Jesus in the temple for Celestial Seasonings Tea and pastries. Sorry to break it to you this way but you are kind of dense.
As for those poor sap Baptists, the difference is that they don't claim to have that direct line to the Savior or to have Celestial Seasonings Tea parties with God in their temple. They don't claim to have the advantages that Mormons claim. Mormons bring this criticism on themselves and yet are proven to be as clueless as those sap Baptists.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
mentalgymnast wrote:What I'm leading up to, as you can probably guess, is just when and where are you going to draw the line for God's intervention in regards to LDS missionaries...or anyone else?
Make no mistake, I'm not the one claiming God intervenes. As far as I can see He doesn't. Ever.
The question becomes yours to answer - when and where do you think God's inspiration for calling Missionaries starts and finishes? And if He calls missionaries into harms way, is that deliberate or negligent?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
mentalgymnast wrote:What I'm leading up to, as you can probably guess, is just when and where are you going to draw the line for God's intervention in regards to LDS missionaries...or anyone else?
Make no mistake, I'm not the one claiming God intervenes. As far as I can see He doesn't. Ever.
The question becomes yours to answer - when and where do you think God's inspiration for calling Missionaries starts and finishes? And if He calls missionaries into harms way, is that deliberate or negligent?
I'm called into harms way sleeping in my house at night. We never know when something bad is going to happen -- that is the nature of life. Missionaries have died in the United States in communities that would be considered safe neighborhoods. I don't know where God's inspiration stops and starts, but we are not in a position to complain when something goes wrong or to question the inspiration of a religious leader just because something bad happens. Bad things happen everyday. Ask the people in Moore, Oklahoma about it. In other words, I think the entire original premise of this thread is faulty and quite frankly a little ridiculous.
BartBurk wrote:I think the entire original premise of this thread is faulty and quite frankly a little ridiculous.
I'm not the one claiming God decides where missionaries get sent, that's what the Apostles and First Presidency claim happens. If you think that claim is faulty and a little ridiculous, then I agree with you.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
BartBurk wrote:I think the entire original premise of this thread is faulty and quite frankly a little ridiculous.
I'm not the one claiming God decides where missionaries get sent, that's what the Apostles and First Presidency claim happens. If you think that claim is faulty and a little ridiculous, then I agree with you.
And if God inspires the Apostles and First Presidency to send a missionary to a place that might be a little dangerous, that wouldn't be all that unusual from a Christian standpoint. The history of Christianity is full of people who have been called on missions to places where they wound up either dying or being persecuted. The idea that God wouldn't call people into harm's way to spread the news about Jesus doesn't make any sense. Remember that old hymn, "I'll Go Where You Want Me to Go Dear Lord?"
I'm a Catholic not a Mormon, but I think the argument you are making just doesn't wash with anyone who believes in Jesus. People die all the time in God's service and are willing to do so to move His kingdom forward.
BartBurk wrote:And if God inspires the Apostles and First Presidency to send a missionary to a place that might be a little dangerous, that wouldn't be all that unusual from a Christian standpoint. The history of Christianity is full of people who have been called on missions to places where they wound up either dying or being persecuted. The idea that God wouldn't call people into harm's way to spread the news about Jesus doesn't make any sense. Remember that old hymn, "I'll Go Where You Want Me to Go Dear Lord?"
I'm a Catholic not a Mormon, but I think the argument you are making just doesn't wash with anyone who believes in Jesus. People die all the time in God's service and are willing to do so to move His kingdom forward.
I'm not suggesting God wouldn't call people into harms way. I'm asking why He keeps changing His mind when it comes to Mormon missionaries?
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)