Comments on: General Conference Open Thread

By: Dustin

Dustin — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:14:41 +0000

Good posts Kim. It’s an interesting discussion.
Thanks for letting me put my two cents in.
Cheers!

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:14:06 +0000

FYI, Elder Wirthlin had locked knees (see #22).

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695217562,00.html

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:15:04 +0000

Dustin,

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 03:56:21 +0000

Those are really good points and I'm obviously being a bit dramatic here. I know the free agency/choice component to this. That God can't possibly alter the course of every disease or crazy dictator. It sounds to me like there may be a culture of personal revelation at play here. Whether it be a young suitor telling his girlfriend that it was revealed to him that they are to marry, or the family who feels inspired to move or have more kids etc. I remember praying that I would do well on an exam and if I did well, I was blessed, if not it was a test of faith and I should try harder. I just wonder how often one counts the hits and ignores the misses? I don't see any way around it though, considering the culture and language of Mormonism. It is all so completely subjective. Why not just say, I want so and so to be in such and such calling, or I want to move to such and such place? What is really going on here, I wonder?

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:11 +0000

He will step in and help you and all other LDS priesthood authorities find a primary teacher or librarian or activities chairperson or whatever-every time

I guess it depends on what you man by "step in and help". I've never been told to call such-and-such a person. I've always made the decision on my own and then gone to him for confirmation. I'm not sure I would go so far as calling that "stepping in and helping". It seems "stepping in and helping" is more invasive than my methods.

he wonâ€t step in to save 100s of thousands of innocent people from genocide or save a child from cancer, or stop suicide bombers

Considering the fact that people who do not die from genocide or cancer or suicide bombers are not reported, I don't say that we can say with absolute certainty that he never stops genocide, or never stops cancer, or never stops suicide bombers. Just because genocide, cancer and suicide bombing happen some of the time, doesn't mean that every possible instance of them are carried out.

But I do have to agree with, JM. If he were to interfere with every situation so there was always a paradisaical outcome, what would have been the point in coming to earth? Why not just stay in heaven with him?

In addition, it would also mean the opportunity to make bad choices (and thus have really freedom of choice) would be taken away. We might as well all have sided with Lucifer then.

By: JM

JM — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:40:34 +0000

Althought I don't agree with your reasoning, more and more I am agreeing with the end result.

There may be situations where He wants a certain individual to do a certain job, but I think most of the time, there are probably lots of choices and he leaves it up to us. Not much inspiration there.

Regarding the war, etc... having the freedom to choose also means having the freedom to live with the consequences. If he stepped in all the time, we wouldn't really be free.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:25:26 +0000

I guess my point is this. He will step in and help you and all other LDS priesthood authorities find a primary teacher or librarian or activities chairperson or whatever-every time. But he won't step in to save 100s of thousands of innocent people from genocide or save a child from cancer, or stop suicide bombers, etc.? It doesn't compute for me.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:36:48 +0000

Why wouldn't he, Dustin? If God is concerned for the instruction of his children (and we don't need to read far into the scriptures to find support for that), why wouldn't he care a good teacher is called to instruct those children (young or grown adults)?

If God is concerned for a single sparrow or if he counts the hair on our head (see Luke 12:6-7), surely he must care for how we are taught.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:10:30 +0000

I'm going to be the devils advocate here. C'mon guys, if there is a God, do you think he would even care about who was called as a primary teacher-or councillor for that matter (much less the procedures outlined in the General Handbook of Instructions) . Why not just choose someone who you think has the time, would do a good job, maybe even likes kids, and is faithful, and let God deal with issues like the genocide in Darfur, or the war in Iraq...

By: rick

rick — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:35 +0000

"I donâ€t know the cause of the difference"

Well obviously one of the two is less righteous - the trick is to find out which one so you can rule out his opinion. ;)