Signs Of Second Coming.....tsunami

[pushka]

Lol Snow and Strawberry...your comments were very humorous..:)

Okay...I think that maybe some of you have either not read my reply to my own thread in which I apologised for my comments on this thread and on the thread started by Winnie regarding the tsunami disaster...or you have chosen to ignore the apology anyway..it doesn't matter, the apology still stands.

As I have now read the discussion in the Gospel section of the site, I am very happy to read about the efforts that the members of your church have made on behalf of the victims of the tsunami. It was because I had previously attended your church for 5 years and always found the church a caring and considerate, community spirited organisation that I was so shocked to think that nobody had posted any sympathetic threads about the disaster...as I have said, this was a mistake on my part.

PD...you make some good points...you are right, not every post regarding the disaster has to contain expressions of sympathy...also, yes I was being judgemental. I apologise for that. Also, I may have misinterpreted the words in the first post in this thread which refer to the 'wickedness' in the area affected being reflected by the tsunami as meaning that perhaps the people brought the disaster on themselves and it was a 'good' thing that perhaps some future terrorists might have been killed...trouble is, who knows who is gonna turn out to be a terrorist in the future. No, I don't think I would feel any sympathy for any terrorists or other sadistic types killed in this or any other disaster either.

Finally, Setheus...I wasn't comparing the bible stories to Mother Goose stories, I compared them to Aesop's fables, stories with a moral, same sort of thing as the parables that Jesus told....hope that explains my meaning a little clearer.

Anyway, I hope that this helps people to understand why I got on such a 'high horse' in my first reply on this thread, and I hope that my apologies are accepted in the relevant places.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 8 2005, 05:42 AM

Finally, Setheus...I wasn't comparing the bible stories to Mother Goose stories, I compared them to Aesop's fables, stories with a moral, same sort of thing as the parables that Jesus told....hope that explains my meaning a little clearer.

Hey, mother goose has morals to be learned....build your house out of brick not straw, don't sit on a bloody wall (if you happen to be filled with yolk), ect etc...

[Cal]

Originally posted by mountainrider@Jan 3 2005, 01:42 PM

Before I go any further, I have to say that I feel horrible about this politically incorrect, Jesusland interpretation of world events, but I can't help it

In April 2004 General Conference, Elder Oaks said the following:

"These signs of the Second Coming are all around us and seem to be increasing in frequency and intensity. For example, the list of major earthquakes in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004 shows twice as many earthquakes in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s as in the two preceding decades (pp. 189–90). It also shows further sharp increases in the first several years of this century. The list of notable floods and tidal waves and the list of hurricanes, typhoons, and blizzards worldwide show similar increases in recent years (pp. 188–89). Increases by comparison with 50 years ago can be dismissed as changes in reporting criteria, but the accelerating pattern of natural disasters in the last few decades is ominous."

At the time, this talk struck me as terribly important but the recent world events brought it back to the front of my mind. As I have pondered what has happened, I can't help but wonder, amongst all those that died a horrible, sudden death, did any future terrorists lose their lives? Is this disaster directly related to the collective wickedness of the region? As I watch many in the United States further pervert God's will and continue to justify the breaking of the most basic commandments, I can't help but think about what will come in the future and if "I have my house in order"?

has anyone else had these thoughts or am I way outa line?

The problem with imbueing God with the power to reign disaster on the wicked is that, by implication, it imbues him with the power to prevent the infliction of pain on the rightous, which he clearly does not do. Not only that, but He doesn't seem to know the difference between the rightous and the wicked, if the recent Tsunami is any indication of God's wrath or warnings of the "second coming".

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 8 2005, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 8 2005, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--mountainrider@Jan 3 2005, 01:42 PM

Before I go any further, I have to say that I feel horrible about this politically incorrect, Jesusland interpretation of world events, but I can't help it

In April 2004 General Conference, Elder Oaks said the following:

"These signs of the Second Coming are all around us and seem to be increasing in frequency and intensity. For example, the list of major earthquakes in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004 shows twice as many earthquakes in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s as in the two preceding decades (pp. 189–90). It also shows further sharp increases in the first several years of this century. The list of notable floods and tidal waves and the list of hurricanes, typhoons, and blizzards worldwide show similar increases in recent years (pp. 188–89). Increases by comparison with 50 years ago can be dismissed as changes in reporting criteria, but the accelerating pattern of natural disasters in the last few decades is ominous."

At the time, this talk struck me as terribly important but the recent world events brought it back to the front of my mind.  As I have pondered what has happened, I can't help but wonder, amongst all those that died a horrible, sudden death, did any future terrorists lose their lives? Is this disaster directly related to the collective wickedness of the region?  As I watch many in the United States further pervert God's will and continue to justify the breaking of the most basic commandments, I can't help but think about what will come in the future and if "I have my house in order"?

has anyone else had these thoughts or am I way outa line?

The problem with imbueing God with the power to reign disaster on the wicked is that, by implication, it imbues him with the power to prevent the infliction of pain on the rightous, which he clearly does not do. Not only that, but He doesn't seem to know the difference between the rightous and the wicked, if the recent Tsunami is any indication of God's wrath or warnings of the "second coming".

Cleansing the earth can mean bringing the righteous to their reward and the wicked to their punishment. You speak as if the God who is doing this is bringing them all to the same end. Not so. Death to the righteous is a blessing.

Only to the wicked is it a curse. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 8 2005, 04:42 AM

Lol Snow and Strawberry...your comments were very humorous..:)

Okay then - thanks for being a good sport.

[Winnie G]

I really not one for the sings of the second coming since, everyone’s been saying that since I can remember.

Its does make you tip your head to one side when it is mentioned though. ????

It is not hard to notice when counties like south America, Asia Africa seem to have the biblical C kicked out of them every once in a wile.

If it is not a man made i.e.: wars genocide famine then its tsunami’s earthquake……….

It is a interesting to read your thoughts by the way. B)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 8 2005, 09:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 8 2005, 09:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 8 2005, 12:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--mountainrider@Jan 3 2005, 01:42 PM

Before I go any further, I have to say that I feel horrible about this politically incorrect, Jesusland interpretation of world events, but I can't help it

In April 2004 General Conference, Elder Oaks said the following:

"These signs of the Second Coming are all around us and seem to be increasing in frequency and intensity. For example, the list of major earthquakes in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004 shows twice as many earthquakes in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s as in the two preceding decades (pp. 189–90). It also shows further sharp increases in the first several years of this century. The list of notable floods and tidal waves and the list of hurricanes, typhoons, and blizzards worldwide show similar increases in recent years (pp. 188–89). Increases by comparison with 50 years ago can be dismissed as changes in reporting criteria, but the accelerating pattern of natural disasters in the last few decades is ominous."

At the time, this talk struck me as terribly important but the recent world events brought it back to the front of my mind.  As I have pondered what has happened, I can't help but wonder, amongst all those that died a horrible, sudden death, did any future terrorists lose their lives? Is this disaster directly related to the collective wickedness of the region?  As I watch many in the United States further pervert God's will and continue to justify the breaking of the most basic commandments, I can't help but think about what will come in the future and if "I have my house in order"?

has anyone else had these thoughts or am I way outa line?

The problem with imbueing God with the power to reign disaster on the wicked is that, by implication, it imbues him with the power to prevent the infliction of pain on the rightous, which he clearly does not do. Not only that, but He doesn't seem to know the difference between the rightous and the wicked, if the recent Tsunami is any indication of God's wrath or warnings of the "second coming".

Cleansing the earth can mean bringing the righteous to their reward and the wicked to their punishment. You speak as if the God who is doing this is bringing them all to the same end. Not so. Death to the righteous is a blessing.

Only to the wicked is it a curse. :)

Don't you think that God in all his power could make the death of the rightous just a little less traumatic and painful---and what about the rightous that just suffer in pain, without dying?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 8 2005, 11:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 8 2005, 11:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 8 2005, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 8 2005, 12:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--mountainrider@Jan 3 2005, 01:42 PM

Before I go any further, I have to say that I feel horrible about this politically incorrect, Jesusland interpretation of world events, but I can't help it

In April 2004 General Conference, Elder Oaks said the following:

"These signs of the Second Coming are all around us and seem to be increasing in frequency and intensity. For example, the list of major earthquakes in The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2004 shows twice as many earthquakes in the decades of the 1980s and 1990s as in the two preceding decades (pp. 189–90). It also shows further sharp increases in the first several years of this century. The list of notable floods and tidal waves and the list of hurricanes, typhoons, and blizzards worldwide show similar increases in recent years (pp. 188–89). Increases by comparison with 50 years ago can be dismissed as changes in reporting criteria, but the accelerating pattern of natural disasters in the last few decades is ominous."

At the time, this talk struck me as terribly important but the recent world events brought it back to the front of my mind.  As I have pondered what has happened, I can't help but wonder, amongst all those that died a horrible, sudden death, did any future terrorists lose their lives? Is this disaster directly related to the collective wickedness of the region?  As I watch many in the United States further pervert God's will and continue to justify the breaking of the most basic commandments, I can't help but think about what will come in the future and if "I have my house in order"?

has anyone else had these thoughts or am I way outa line?

The problem with imbueing God with the power to reign disaster on the wicked is that, by implication, it imbues him with the power to prevent the infliction of pain on the rightous, which he clearly does not do. Not only that, but He doesn't seem to know the difference between the rightous and the wicked, if the recent Tsunami is any indication of God's wrath or warnings of the "second coming".

Cleansing the earth can mean bringing the righteous to their reward and the wicked to their punishment. You speak as if the God who is doing this is bringing them all to the same end. Not so. Death to the righteous is a blessing.

Only to the wicked is it a curse. :)

Don't you think that God in all his power could make the death of the rightous just a little less traumatic and painful---and what about the rightous that just suffer in pain, without dying?

There is a greater reward for those who are suffering innocently. They also consented to come to this earth and experience these things. So it isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 8 2005, 11:39 PM

Don't you think that God in all his power could make the death of the rightous just a little less traumatic and painful---and what about the rightous that just suffer in pain, without dying?

There is a greater reward for those who are suffering innocently. They also consented to come to this earth and experience these things. So it isn't as arbitrary as you seem to think.

Hmmm...the problem here for those who believe in God, seems to be the way in which we came to this earth...do you believe the LDS version, in which we lived with God before we were born? or do you believe otherwise...therefore arguing against Amilia's statement that we all chose to come here.

I've always had a problem with accepting that those who suffer the most get a greater reward...seems a shame, although I wouldn't advocate people being selfish in order to avoid suffering...

[Guest jackvance88]

in the opening chapters of the book of mormon god tells nephi (or lehi?) that should the nephites fall into transgression then he would use the wicked lamanites to scourge them to an awareness of their sins.

for this reason, i think bush and the new right have it all wrong. al quaida is not the enemy - we are. we are so wicked (in the US and Europe) that god is using these terrorists in the same way he used the lamanites against the nephites, to stir them/us up in the ways of remembrance. as long as we continue along this path - worshiping careers and jobs, liberalizing marriage and abortion laws (even utah now recognizes common law marriage!), unchastity, infidelity, adultery, flesh and porn on mainstream tv, women in the workplace, pursuing wealth and money, neglecting the poor, selfishness etc, then there will always be the likes of al quaida to punish us. god put it into the heart of pharoh remember...

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by jackvance88@Jan 10 2005, 01:09 PM

in the opening chapters of the book of mormon god tells nephi (or lehi?) that should the nephites fall into transgression then he would use the wicked lamanites to scourge them to an awareness of their sins.

for this reason, i think bush and the new right have it all wrong. al quaida is not the enemy - we are. we are so wicked (in the US and Europe) that god is using these terrorists in the same way he used the lamanites against the nephites, to stir them/us up in the ways of remembrance. as long as we continue along this path - worshiping careers and jobs, liberalizing marriage and abortion laws (even utah now recognizes common law marriage!), unchastity, infidelity, adultery, flesh and porn on mainstream tv, women in the workplace, pursuing wealth and money, neglecting the poor, selfishness etc, then there will always be the likes of al quaida to punish us. god put it into the heart of pharoh remember...

Problem is, most European countries have even more permissive social climates than we do, and they're not being "scourged" by terrorists as much as we are. When someone blows up the red-light district in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, then you might have a point. To the contrary, it's been the more socially conservative countries, like the United States and Spain, that have taken the biggest hits.

By your logic, the tsunami in SE Asia drowned Swedish tourists because they were libertines, but drowned the pious Muslim Indonesians next door because -- what? They were too socially conservative?

The whole idea that God uses disasters and the "scourging" of barbarians to punish the wicked is a theological relic and a colossal misunderstanding, no matter what the scriptures say. If the ancient prophets interpreted plagues, wars, etc. as being called down by God, they were speaking as men, based on limited light and knowledge. (What a useful phrase that is!)

"There is no other way" to become like God than to experience life in a fallen, natural world. Living in a such a world means first, that people like terrorists may use their free will to hurt innocents, and second, that the earth itself will try very hard to drown, bury, shake, burn, or blow you to death with no more care for your particular animated dust than it has for a dirt clod in the path of a flood. "So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life."

God gives us commandments because He wants us to be safe and have joy, as well as to prepare for eternal life. Some of the commandments, like the Word of Wisdom and law of chastity, protect us temporally as well as spiritually; others won't help you avoid tidal waves, but will give you the spiritual strength to deal with the damage they do.

If the wickedness of the people in Noah's time led to their deaths by drowning in the flood, it was less a consequence, I believe, of a vengeful God sending the flood to destroy them, than of their being too spiritually dead to hear the voice of God warning that a flood was going to take place -- possibly from entirely natural causes -- and they'd better get to high ground. If the Nephites got slaughtered on occasion, it was less a case of the Lord putting bees in the Lamanites' ears than of their pride and wickedness weakening them in the face of assaults that were going to happen in any case.

[Winnie G]

When reading your remarks about why things happen the way they do.

Why bad things happening to good people?

That has been a test of faith for myself and my family after the kidnapping and …….ect of my oldest son, he has not spoken to God since then.

Trying to explain free will for someone SOOO wronged is almost imposable.

I have asked my son were to all the counsellors come from who can really say “I understand” come from?

We share this earth and with that we encountering evil in all forms.

All I know is in the mist of our pain we are not privy to the whole plan that has been set before us.

It’s like trying to see the forest for the trees.

I learned a long time ago to just add to the list of questions I will ask my Father in Heaven when I get there. It the enduring to the end that gets me.

[speedomansam]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 10 2005, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 10 2005, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--jackvance88@Jan 10 2005, 01:09 PM

in the opening chapters of the book of mormon god tells nephi (or lehi?) that should the nephites fall into transgression then he would use the wicked lamanites to scourge them to an awareness of their sins.

for this reason, i think bush and the new right have it all wrong. al quaida is not the enemy - we are. we are so wicked (in the US and Europe) that god is using these terrorists in the same way he used the lamanites against the nephites, to stir them/us up in the ways of remembrance. as long as we continue along this path - worshiping careers and jobs, liberalizing marriage and abortion laws (even utah now recognizes common law marriage!), unchastity, infidelity, adultery, flesh and porn on mainstream tv, women in the workplace, pursuing wealth and money, neglecting the poor, selfishness etc, then there will always be the likes of al quaida to punish us. god put it into the heart of pharoh remember...

Problem is, most European countries have even more permissive social climates than we do, and they're not being "scourged" by terrorists as much as we are. When someone blows up the red-light district in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, then you might have a point. To the contrary, it's been the more socially conservative countries, like the United States and Spain, that have taken the biggest hits.

By your logic, the tsunami in SE Asia drowned Swedish tourists because they were libertines, but drowned the pious Muslim Indonesians next door because -- what? They were too socially conservative?

The whole idea that God uses disasters and the "scourging" of barbarians to punish the wicked is a theological relic and a colossal misunderstanding, no matter what the scriptures say. If the ancient prophets interpreted plagues, wars, etc. as being called down by God, they were speaking as men, based on limited light and knowledge. (What a useful phrase that is!)

"There is no other way" to become like God than to experience life in a fallen, natural world. Living in a such a world means first, that people like terrorists may use their free will to hurt innocents, and second, that the earth itself will try very hard to drown, bury, shake, burn, or blow you to death with no more care for your particular animated dust than it has for a dirt clod in the path of a flood. "So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life."

God gives us commandments because He wants us to be safe and have joy, as well as to prepare for eternal life. Some of the commandments, like the Word of Wisdom and law of chastity, protect us temporally as well as spiritually; others won't help you avoid tidal waves, but will give you the spiritual strength to deal with the damage they do.

If the wickedness of the people in Noah's time led to their deaths by drowning in the flood, it was less a consequence, I believe, of a vengeful God sending the flood to destroy them, than of their being too spiritually dead to hear the voice of God warning that a flood was going to take place -- possibly from entirely natural causes -- and they'd better get to high ground. If the Nephites got slaughtered on occasion, it was less a case of the Lord putting bees in the Lamanites' ears than of their pride and wickedness weakening them in the face of assaults that were going to happen in any case.

actually, europe's received much more terrorist attacks than the US. that's why they're so desensitised and calloused to it and aren't as willing to help us fight it.

hmm, God didn't cause the flood in Noah's time?

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to arain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

you believe what you want, but i don't think there's any way to misinterpret that scripture. that was God speaking, so you can't say that some prophet, presumably Moses, decided to speak as a man there. that's dangerous thinking, anyhow.

[Amillia]

Jackvance 88,

Women in the work place is evil? Who are you? What are you?

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 11 2005, 10:50 AM

Women in the work place is evil? Who are you? What are you?

I don't think it was meant to be taken too literaly. I think he meant women in general are evil.

HTH

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Speedo,

that's dangerous thinking, anyhow.

What's "dangerous" is refusing to accept that sometimes prophets get it wrong -- and when they do, it's simply because God hasn't revealed the fulness of the truth to them, and they, being human, may go beyond what has been revealed to them.

A person who refuses to recognize this is in danger of having his faith destroyed the first time it is clearly demonstrated to him that a prophet has erred.

We are responsible for our judgments as well as our actions. I judge, based on the best information available to me, that God did not cause the flood described in Genesis. I make that judgment based on (1) my understanding of geology; (2) my understanding of God's nature, which has the advantage over the author of Genesis of centuries' worth of additional revelation and an entire new testament.

If it turns out that I'm wrong, then I will repentently accept responsibility for my misjudgment, just as I accept responsibility for my other sins, and trust in the atonement for forgiveness.

[speedomansam]

i understand that prophets can be wrong--they're human--and if i found so my testimony would be able to pull through. but, when have they been wrong? perhaps there is something in having faith that they are right, even if it appears that they are wrong.

if you start picking and choosing what to believe as prophecy and what to disregard as simple "man" talk, that's when things get dangerous. it can lead to things like "hmm, maybe the whole building a temple thing was just joseph smith overinterpeting his command to build houses of worship" and "hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth. how would moses ever know that?". these are fairly exaggerated claims, but you see what it can lead to. i know you're coming from a sincere viewpoint and think you're smart enough to get things right by picking and choosing, and maybe you are.

I make that judgment based on (1) my understanding of geology; (2) my understanding of God's nature, whichhas the advantage over the author of Genesis of centuries' worth of additional revelation and an entire new testament.

i'm pretty sure moses is the author of genesis. is he not? now, are you saying that Moses, who talked with God face to face and was pretty much shown everything, is wrong and you're right? there's nothing in the new testament, or even the D&C, that Moses didn't know. or was moses speaking as a man when he said he talked to God?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Speedo,

I'm familiar with the widely-held Mormon tradition that all prophets get a revelation in which they are "shown everything" -- the fulness of the gospel, the total nature of God, and the entirety of history. There's nothing in the scriptures that supports this. Nor am I aware of any pronouncements by President Hinckley to that effect. I don't buy it.

if you start picking and choosing what to believe as prophecy and what to disregard as simple "man" talk, that's when things get dangerous. it can lead to things like "hmm, maybe the whole building a temple thing was just joseph smith overinterpeting his command to build houses of worship" and "hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth. how would moses ever know that?"

Hypothetically, telling a little white lie like telling your wife no, she doesn't look like she's picked up a couple of post-holiday pounds could "lead to" greater and greater lies, up to and including full Hoffman-style fraud. Sampling a mild stimulant like a Hershey bar could lead to your drinking Coke, then drinking coffee, then shooting crack. But of course it doesn't have to, and usually doesn't. If you lock your mind down tight to avoid any potential danger, you also avoid one of the two means God has ordained for gaining greater intelligence.

Mistakes by prophets? I'll limit myself; the enemies of the Church will be only too happy to furnish a longer list. Start with Joseph Fielding Smith saying man would never go to the moon (although it's possible he was only a "prophet" -- an apostle -- rather than The Prophet when he said so). Brigham Young's teaching that blacks would not receive the Priesthood until all white people had been redeemed first, and his teaching that interracial marriage was punishable, under the law of God, by death (by beheading, no less -- and also the beheading of such a union's offspring). The Book of Mormon's introduction which states that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

The actual teachings of the prophets and Church history are a lot less uniform than is taught in Seminary. Faced with this truth (as most people eventually are), they have three choices: (1) Apostasize; (2) ignore; (3) reverently accept revealed truth when it comes through prophets, but always be sure to obey God rather than man.

Cool username, by the way. A fellow swimmer?

[speedomansam]

i swam as a kid and would dorkily wear my speedo everywhere because it was the only suit i had, even when i was pretty much the only kid in a speedo at a party. so, then my sister started calling me speedomansam. but, i actually hate swimming. i'd much rather run--then at least you can breathe and there's stuff to look at.

i don't think all prophets get a revelation in which they are shown everything. i do think there is a huge difference between prophets and the prophet to lead a dispensation. but anyway, we do know that moses talked with God face to face and was shown the entire world and all the inhabitants of the world. we do know that moses quoted God as saying "I will cause" the flood. did he misquote?

i had never heard those things about Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young, though i suspected there had to be apparently wacko sayings by them. even still, everything you mentioned as something where prophets have been wrong may be refutable. i don't know the context of those things (and not knowing the context is how so many against the LDS church misinterpret doctrine. additionally, even those who see the context can misinterpret--for example: people that interpret D&C 124 to mean baptisms for the dead were only to occur while building the temple and not to be done afterwards). Anyways, i think it is significant that JFS said the moon thing while he wasn't The Prophet (and perhaps he meant live on the moon or a different moon (or maybe the moon was a metaphor)). Blacks and the priesthood said by BY: what does redeemed mean, anyway? Didn't Christ redeem everybody, blacks and whites, with the atonement? So, does this mean blacks weren't to receive the priesthood until after the atonement? BY and intermarriage: perhaps he meant was punishble, not is, or perhaps marrying interracially actually is some great sin (the church still councils against it). The BOM title page stating indians desended from lamanites: perhaps they did. At this point, there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, i've never seen where you got that info from, so i can't judge for myself. I just brought all that up to make sure you realize that just because something seems way wrong by logic, doesn't mean it is. Was the earth created in 6 days? Perhaps, but that seems way wrong as science tells us it took billions of years. Moses sure seemed wrong on that one, didn't he? But, of course, we know that days actually mean periods, so maybe he was right after all.

interesting discussion.

just curious, what did you mean by this?:

one of the two means God has ordained for gaining greater intelligence.

[Cal]

Originally posted by speedomansam+Jan 10 2005, 09:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (speedomansam @ Jan 10 2005, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 10 2005, 03:37 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--jackvance88@Jan 10 2005, 01:09 PM

in the opening chapters of the book of mormon god tells nephi (or lehi?) that should the nephites fall into transgression then he would use the wicked lamanites to scourge them to an awareness of their sins.

for this reason, i think bush and the new right have it all wrong. al quaida is not the enemy - we are. we are so wicked (in the US and Europe) that god is using these terrorists in the same way he used the lamanites against the nephites, to stir them/us up in the ways of remembrance. as long as we continue along this path - worshiping careers and jobs, liberalizing marriage and abortion laws (even utah now recognizes common law marriage!), unchastity, infidelity, adultery, flesh and porn on mainstream tv, women in the workplace, pursuing wealth and money, neglecting the poor, selfishness etc, then there will always be the likes of al quaida to punish us. god put it into the heart of pharoh remember...

Problem is, most European countries have even more permissive social climates than we do, and they're not being "scourged" by terrorists as much as we are. When someone blows up the red-light district in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, then you might have a point. To the contrary, it's been the more socially conservative countries, like the United States and Spain, that have taken the biggest hits.

By your logic, the tsunami in SE Asia drowned Swedish tourists because they were libertines, but drowned the pious Muslim Indonesians next door because -- what? They were too socially conservative?

The whole idea that God uses disasters and the "scourging" of barbarians to punish the wicked is a theological relic and a colossal misunderstanding, no matter what the scriptures say. If the ancient prophets interpreted plagues, wars, etc. as being called down by God, they were speaking as men, based on limited light and knowledge. (What a useful phrase that is!)

"There is no other way" to become like God than to experience life in a fallen, natural world. Living in a such a world means first, that people like terrorists may use their free will to hurt innocents, and second, that the earth itself will try very hard to drown, bury, shake, burn, or blow you to death with no more care for your particular animated dust than it has for a dirt clod in the path of a flood. "So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life."

God gives us commandments because He wants us to be safe and have joy, as well as to prepare for eternal life. Some of the commandments, like the Word of Wisdom and law of chastity, protect us temporally as well as spiritually; others won't help you avoid tidal waves, but will give you the spiritual strength to deal with the damage they do.

If the wickedness of the people in Noah's time led to their deaths by drowning in the flood, it was less a consequence, I believe, of a vengeful God sending the flood to destroy them, than of their being too spiritually dead to hear the voice of God warning that a flood was going to take place -- possibly from entirely natural causes -- and they'd better get to high ground. If the Nephites got slaughtered on occasion, it was less a case of the Lord putting bees in the Lamanites' ears than of their pride and wickedness weakening them in the face of assaults that were going to happen in any case.

actually, europe's received much more terrorist attacks than the US. that's why they're so desensitised and calloused to it and aren't as willing to help us fight it.

hmm, God didn't cause the flood in Noah's time?

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to arain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

you believe what you want, but i don't think there's any way to misinterpret that scripture. that was God speaking, so you can't say that some prophet, presumably Moses, decided to speak as a man there. that's dangerous thinking, anyhow.

Literal interpretations of Genesis as well as much of the rest of the Bible can lead to some pretty implausible results. Remember, the ancients thought god "caused" everything. That was simply the mindset of a people with little understanding of the physical and chemical properties of matter. We no longer need to blame God for everything, unless you are simply equating God with nature itself.

[Cal]

Originally posted by yaanufs+Jan 11 2005, 11:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (yaanufs @ Jan 11 2005, 11:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 11 2005, 10:50 AM

Women in the work place is evil? Who are you? What are you?

I don't think it was meant to be taken too literaly. I think he meant women in general are evil.

HTH

Maybe Genesis is not to be taken literally either!

[Cal]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Jan 11 2005, 04:12 PM

i understand that prophets can be wrong--they're human--and if i found so my testimony would be able to pull through. but, when have they been wrong? perhaps there is something in having faith that they are right, even if it appears that they are wrong.

if you start picking and choosing what to believe as prophecy and what to disregard as simple "man" talk, that's when things get dangerous.  it can lead to things like "hmm, maybe the whole building a temple thing was just joseph smith overinterpeting his command to build houses of worship" and "hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth. how would moses ever know that?". these are fairly exaggerated claims, but you see what it can lead to. i know you're coming from a sincere viewpoint and think you're smart enough to get things right by picking and choosing, and maybe you are.

I make that judgment based on (1) my understanding of geology; (2) my understanding of God's nature, whichhas the advantage over the author of Genesis of centuries' worth of additional revelation and an entire new testament.

i'm pretty sure moses is the author of genesis. is he not? now, are you saying that Moses, who talked with God face to face and was pretty much shown everything, is wrong and you're right? there's nothing in the new testament, or even the D&C, that Moses didn't know. or was moses speaking as a man when he said he talked to God?

Speedo--

if you start picking and choosing what to believe as prophecy and what to disregard as simple "man" talk, that's when things get dangerous. it can lead to things like "hmm, maybe the whole building a temple thing was just joseph smith overinterpeting his command to build houses of worship" and

"hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth.

how would moses ever know that?".

"hey, perhaps adam and eve weren't even the first people on the earth.

Perhaps they weren't. Human remains have been found all over the world that are clearly older than any time of Adam. Whether you like it or not, PD has an unasailable point--if you hold every prophet to everything they have said, you might as well throw in the testimonial 'towel'. Example: Brigham Young clearly taught that Adam was literally God---a doctrine totally disavowed by present church leaders. BY also said that Blacks wouldn't hold the priesthood until the millenium--an event that church leaders continue to preach is yet to come. Should we go on?

[Cal]

Originally posted by speedomansam@Jan 11 2005, 07:47 PM

i swam as a kid and would dorkily wear my speedo everywhere because it was the only suit i had, even when i was pretty much the only kid in a speedo at a party. so, then my sister started calling me speedomansam. but, i actually hate swimming. i'd much rather run--then at least you can breathe and there's stuff to look at.

i don't think all prophets get a revelation in which they are shown everything. i do think there is a huge difference between prophets and the prophet to lead a dispensation. but anyway, we do know that moses talked with God face to face and was shown the entire world and all the inhabitants of the world. we do know that moses quoted God as saying "I will cause" the flood. did he misquote?

i had never heard those things about Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young, though i suspected there had to be apparently wacko sayings by them. even still, everything you mentioned as something where prophets have been wrong may be refutable. i don't know the context of those things (and not knowing the context is how so many against the LDS church misinterpret doctrine. additionally, even those who see the context can misinterpret--for example: people that interpret D&C 124 to mean baptisms for the dead were only to occur while building the temple and not to be done afterwards). Anyways, i think it is significant that JFS said the moon thing while he wasn't The Prophet (and perhaps he meant live on the moon or a different moon (or maybe the moon was a metaphor)). Blacks and the priesthood said by BY: what does redeemed mean, anyway? Didn't Christ redeem everybody, blacks and whites, with the atonement? So, does this mean blacks weren't to receive the priesthood until after the atonement? BY and intermarriage: perhaps he meant was punishble, not is, or perhaps marrying interracially actually is some great sin (the church still councils against it). The BOM title page stating indians desended from lamanites: perhaps they did. At this point, there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, i've never seen where you got that info from, so i can't judge for myself. I just brought all that up to make sure you realize that just because something seems way wrong by logic, doesn't mean it is. Was the earth created in 6 days? Perhaps, but that seems way wrong as science tells us it took billions of years. Moses sure seemed wrong on that one, didn't he? But, of course, we know that days actually mean periods, so maybe he was right after all.

interesting discussion.

just curious, what did you mean by this?:

one of the two means God has ordained for gaining greater intelligence.

Anyways, i've never seen where you got that info from, so i can't judge for myself. I just brought all that up to make sure you realize that just because something seems way wrong by logic, doesn't mean it is. Was the earth created in 6 days? Perhaps, but that seems way wrong as science tells us it took billions of years. Moses sure seemed wrong on that one, didn't he? But, of course, we know that days actually mean periods, so maybe he was right after all.

we know that days actually mean periods,

Speedo--I wish you would demonstrate a little intellectual honesy. When it suits your purpose you are willing to interpret Genesis NON-literally, but then you turn around and insist the the literal interpretations YOU give are the only view. Can't have it both ways--if Genesis can be interpreted metaphorically in one place, where CAN'T it be?

Also, first you insist on the truth of things that science has clearly refuted (the ancestry of the american natives), and then you express faith in OTHER things science has demonstrated---"but that seems way wrong as science tells us it took billions of years."

You affirm the scientific method when it suits your purposes, and disparage it when it contradicts you--that is called intellectual dishonesty.

[speedomansam]

science has clearly refuted (the ancestry of the american natives)

from the limited reading i've done on the subject, science has not refuted this; it's very much in the air as a fair reading and analysis of the DNA testing they've done is inconclusive. anyway, i don't want this to turn into an argument about that.

intelectual dishonesty? i don't think so. as explained above, from what i've seen the scientific method doesn't conclude american indians aren't principally lamanites. my interpretation of genesis was literal in both circumstances--that god caused the flood and that the earth was created in 6 days (and as days translated literally means periods, i am taking it literally).

in explaining how the creation seems wrong, i was taking a viewpoint in the likeness of TheProudDuck's that believes science first and then scripture, if science backs it up (i know that sounds harsh, so don't get offended because that philosophy is merely the extreme of what TheProudDuck was arguing). i did this to demonstrate how just because a prophet seems wrong (to one who uses a scientific philosophy) doesn't mean he is. In this case, it took the further knowledge of scripture (that days means periods) to prove him right. other times, it takes the further knowledge of science (like finally discovering horse bones in the Americas, proving that horses did indeed exist way back then) to prove him right.

either way, what once science has proved wrong may later be proved right. science changes.

which brings me back to your insinuating claim that i was being intellectually dishonest. are apologists intelectually dishonest? because they're always searching for ways, researching ways, using the scientific method to come up with ways, to prove what once seemed wrong as right, are they being dishonest? are they being total intellectually dishonest nutheads?

is having faith being intellectually dishonest? if so, i'll take the faith (and don't go off saying it would be blind)

and you know what? i really don't have a problem with modern day prophets being wrong. it's very hard to be completely filled with the spirit and guided by him 100% of the time. thus, in this day in age, when every single thing a prophet says is monitored to use against him, it's a miracle they don't look like the idiots that presidential candidates do. but, occasionally they may do something like yell at their wife, lose the spirit, and then say something crazy like we're never going to the moon in some sort of high council board meeting. the scriptures we have though, are not like that. they are the evidence of prophets meticulously writing down prophecy as they are guided by the spirit, or occasionally inspired speaches like King Benjamins or examples of teaching by the spirit like Alma and the sons of Moroni. Anything bogas that was said on a prophet's "off day", probably wasn't written down, and if it was i think it would have been screened out by whoever compiled the records under the direction of the spirit. And, anything wrong that still got through (or perhaps was changed) and ended up in the scripures today we call the standard works, Joseph Smith retranslated. and, you still see this editing process in modern times. JFS saying something about not going to the moon didn't end up in the D&C.

Thus, i believe that what we read in the scriptures is pretty much right and not evidence of prophets overinterpreting what was revealed to them.

[speedomansam]

thanks, though, this has made me think.