Irony - Answered Prayers

[Anddenex]

17 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

State of hearts?

 

At some level it’s just business. 

 

I dont think God has a lot to do with it. 

An answered prayer God has nothing to do with? OK. That is new.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Anddenex

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

And like @Fether you are making assumptions regarding the father and circumstance. Nothing is mentioned regarding the Lord making known the hearts of men; although, in scripture it is very clear the Lord can reveal the hearts of men -- even if they are not within your stewardship.

In your account of the first experience, you said: "Without going into private details, he [the father] shared that with the first experience the Lord was there seeking to help him, and that the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children. "

You then went on to clarify,: "First experience, temple recommend holders whose hearts could not be softened although the Lord attempted." and later asked: "How is it that the Lord could not soften the heart (because he will not force his children's mind) of those who are supposed to be close to the Spirit? Wouldn't those who are closer to the Spirit be easier to soften the heart?" (Emphasis mine)

How can this reasonably be interpreted in some other way than that you and/or your acquaintance is clearly saying that the Lord revealed that, in the first experience, the hearts of the temple recommend holders (men) could not be softened by the Lord --i.e. their hearts were hard.?  Is this not the same as saying the  the Lord revealed to your friend the hearts of his bosses?

I ask because I didn't see that I was making assumptions, but rather taking you at  your  word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest Mores]

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Here is the outcome:
1) First and second experience prayers were offered
2) First experience, temple recommend holders whose hearts could not be softened although the Lord attempted
3) Second experience, those who are without the Lord in their lives the Lord was able to soften their heart that they fought to keep this father's job.

The Lord has the power to soften people's hearts.  And where appropriate he will.  He generally does not bend the laws of the universe at a whim.  That's another matter.  The greater the intervention by the hand of God, the greater the reason for it must be.

I would guess (only guess, because I have no idea of the specifics, especially the tiemeline) that the first instance was a business situation where there simply would not be any economic/financial way for the company to keep him.  In the second case, I would guess that the company was downsizing, but certain managers were picking and choosing whom to keep.  And the Lord saw fit that this father was probably better for that company to keep than others had in mind.  So, he softened their hearts to recognize the fact.

It could also be that the Lord knew that this father would be able to endure the first unemployment (which he obviously did) but not the second one.  So, he intervened by NEED.

There are many explanations.  We can talk about them all day.  But in the end we must admit that we only see a small picture.  We need to trust in the Lord.

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

In your account of the first experience, you said: "Without going into private details, he [the father] shared that with the first experience the Lord was there seeking to help him, and that the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children. "

You then went on to clarify,: "First experience, temple recommend holders whose hearts could not be softened although the Lord attempted." and later asked: "How is it that the Lord could not soften the heart (because he will not force his children's mind) of those who are supposed to be close to the Spirit? Wouldn't those who are closer to the Spirit be easier to soften the heart?" (Emphasis mine)

How can this reasonably be interpreted in some other way than that you and/or your acquaintance is clearly saying that the Lord revealed that, in the first experience, the hearts of the temple recommend holders (men) could not be softened by the Lord --i.e. their hearts were hard.?  Is this not the same as saying the  the Lord revealed to your friend the hearts of his bosses?

I ask because I didn't see that I was making assumptions, but rather taking you at  your  word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade. I am thinking, at this moment, then you and I are experiencing two different ideas/connotations of what I said, and why it appeared to me that you were making an assumption. The Lord did not reveal anything to this father regarding the "state of heart" of these individuals. It was revealed that the Lord was with him and that the Lord sought to help him. That is different than the Lord actually revealing the "state of heart" at that time of these individuals.

In both examples, the "state of heart" was not mentioned, only that it was apparent that the Lord was able to soften ones heart -- such that he kept his job -- and could not soften the heart of the other -- such that he was let go.  Let me see if I can further clarify, I would not make any statement regarding the state of heart being wicked or good. This was never provided. The Lord simply made it known with the first example that he made attempts, but they would not listen.

I am pointing out the irony between the two examples. Those who have the Spirit could not be softened, and those who do not have the Spirit with them their heart was softened. That is what I was hoping would be discussed.

Does that clarify?

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am pointing out the irony between the two examples. Those who have the Spirit could not be softened, and those who do not have the Spirit with them their heart was softened. That is what I was hoping would be discussed.

Is that necessarily what happened?  And if so, is that really ironic?  The Lord will soften whom He will.  Only those who are "past feeling" have no place for the Spirit.

The temple recommend is a piece of paper.  While we'd like to think that it means something, it is a sad truth that too many do not live up to the meaning behind that piece of paper.  And it is also true that non-LDS folk exist that truly have dedicated themselves to Christ in their own way.  Terrestrial Christians also have a portion of the Spirit with them and can often be in tune with the Spirit -- to a Terrestrial level.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

The Lord has the power to soften people's hearts.  And where appropriate he will.  He generally does not bend the laws of the universe at a whim.  That's another matter.  The greater the intervention by the hand of God, the greater the reason for it must be.

I would guess (only guess, because I have no idea of the specifics, especially the tiemeline) that the first instance was a business situation where there simply would not be any economic/financial way for the company to keep him.  In the second case, I would guess that the company was downsizing, but certain managers were picking and choosing whom to keep.  And the Lord saw fit that this father was probably better for that company to keep than others had in mind.  So, he softened their hearts to recognize the fact.

It could also be that the Lord knew that this father would be able to endure the first unemployment (which he obviously did) but not the second one.  So, he intervened by NEED.

There are many explanations.  We can talk about them all day.  But in the end we must admit that we only see a small picture.  We need to trust in the Lord.

Your first sentence coincides with the answer to his prayer. The Lord will seek to soften hearts, where appropriate, as long as it doesn't bend the laws he abides by. As the answer he received specified he [the Lord] will not force the human mind.

I can provide this aspect regarding your guess. The company was not in any financial situation that would have given reason to let people go. The company was actually having record profits, and if I understand correctly the company has continued to have record profits every year after. I believe the company is soon to be sold in the upper millions, and mostly billion if they hold out and continue to be as profitable as they are. I won't share any further detail.

Correct with your second guess; however, the father was actually on the list to be let go. They had his severance and papers written out already by HR. In the meeting before they brought everyone in, these managers fought for him although they had previously agreed he would be let go. What changed their mind? I can't go into any further detail, as I would then be sharing to much that is not mine.

That is a very interesting thought, second to last paragraph, and could be true. Although according to his answer, it appears the Lord tried to intervene but would not force the human mind. But maybe you have a good point. By NEED, this time the Lord may have intervened more.

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Is that necessarily what happened?  And if so, is that really ironic?  The Lord will soften whom He will.  Only those who are "past feeling" have no place for the Spirit.

The temple recommend is a piece of paper.  While we'd like to think that it means something, it is a sad truth that too many do not live up to the meaning behind that piece of paper.  And it is also true that non-LDS folk exist that truly have dedicated themselves to Christ in their own way.  Terrestrial Christians also have a portion of the Spirit with them and can often be in tune with the Spirit -- to a Terrestrial level.

I accept, through faith, as I accept through faith the other testimonies I have heard regarding answered prayers. In the OP, the father specified the answers to his prayers. In light of that, that is what happened. The Lord said he was with him. The Lord said he could not force the human mind. Yes, that is what I thought and why I posted. I was hoping to hear thoughts regarding the irony. Some other thoughts have been good to hear also.

 

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I accept, through faith, as I accept through faith the other testimonies I have heard regarding answered prayers. In the OP, the father specified the answers to his prayers. In light of that, that is what happened. The Lord said he was with him. The Lord said he could not force the human mind. Yes, that is what I thought and why I posted. I was hoping to hear thoughts regarding the irony. Some other thoughts have been good to hear also.

 

As I said, we could come up with explanations all day.  In line with your statement about "Forcing the human mind"... Perhaps there was a very grand purpose that you and your friend are oblivious to that was very important to these companies to do what they did.

I do see some economics playing into the decisions here that may have played a factor.  But that would take a long time to explain.  The bottom line though, is that some people who are very successful have trained themselves to make decisions based on numbers.  And even if their gut tells them one way (hearts softened) the mind was on the numbers and would not budge.

And again we go back to the fact that we only see a part of the picture.  We see if the elephant's tail long or short.  What about the rest of the elephant?

[wenglund]

51 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Thanks Wade. I am thinking, at this moment, then you and I are experiencing two different ideas/connotations of what I said, and why it appeared to me that you were making an assumption. The Lord did not reveal anything to this father regarding the "state of heart" of these individuals. It was revealed that the Lord was with him and that the Lord sought to help him. That is different than the Lord actually revealing the "state of heart" at that time of these individuals.I

Just to be clear, given that the softening or hardness is descriptive of the "state of the heart," you are now saying that the Lord did not reveal, implicitly or otherwise, that the hearts of the bosses couldn't or could be softened respectively? 

If so, then, as I quoted from your OP (see my previous post, particularly the emphasized portion),  was it you or your acquaintance who assumed that the bosses hearts couldn't or could be softened respectively? (Again, I didn't assume anything. I took your OP at its word)

This will be my last attempt to gain clarity. If it fails, I will happily leave the thread for want of capacity for me to productively communicate with you on this topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

41 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Just to be clear, given that the softening or hardness is descriptive of the "state of the heart," you are now saying that the Lord did not reveal, implicitly or otherwise, that the hearts of the bosses couldn't or could be softened respectively? 

If so, then, as I quoted from your OP (see my previous post, particularly the emphasized portion),  was it you or your acquaintance who assumed that the bosses hearts couldn't or could be softened respectively? (Again, I didn't assume anything. I took your OP at its word)

This will be my last attempt to gain clarity. If it fails, I will happily leave the thread for want of capacity for me to productively communicate with you on this topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am pretty sure I made clear two distinctions/connotations in my previous response regarding the "state of heart" that the Lord did and did not reveal and where I think I assumed you were saying something I did not say. I didn't change anything regarding what I shared.

If the Lord makes an attempt, and that person refuses the attempt, then the heart of that person is not softened. This would be a hard heart, in that thing, in that event. Some on here are assuming that I was specifying the state of heart as "wicked or good." I made no distinction pertaining to that state of heart. This is what I understood you were specifying previously regarding the Lord revealing the state of a heart. Thus I did not make mention regarding the state of heart I understood you were referring to.

Neither me or the father made any assumption regarding the bosses softened heart. The OP stated, the Lord was with him and that the Lord reached out. The OP stated the one managers hearts were softened while (although the Lord tried) the other was not. That isn't an assumption regarding a softening of heart. That is what happened.

If that doesn't clarify, then we are at odds.

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Anddenex

[Guest Mores]

41 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Just to be clear, given that the softening or hardness is descriptive of the "state of the heart," 

26 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am pretty sure I made clear two distinctions/connotations in my previous response regarding the "state of heart" 

Would my idea of the separation of the heart and mind be useful in assimilating your perspectives?

If the words of the Spirit to this friend of yours was that the Lord cannot "force the mind of man" then does that necessarily mean that the softening of the heart did not necessarily occur?  Could not his heart be softened, but their minds were still not changed?

Lehi was in the middle of a grandiose vision.  But because his mind was caught up in other things, he did not notice the filthiness of the water.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Mores

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Would my idea of the separation of the heart and mind be useful in assimilating your perspectives?

If the words of the Spirit to this friend of yours was that the Lord cannot "force the mind of man" then does that necessarily mean that the softening of the heart did not necessarily occur?  Could not his heart be softened, but their minds were still not changed?

Lehi was in the middle of a grandiose vision.  But because his mind was caught up in other things, he did not notice the filthiness of the water.

In light of your thought, would you further clarify in light of this from Amulek:

Quote

Nevertheless, after all this, I never have known much of the ways of the Lord, and his mysteries and marvelous power. I said I never had known much of these things; but behold, I mistake, for I have seen much of his mysteries and his marvelous power; yea, even in the preservation of the lives of this people.

6 Nevertheless, I did harden my heart, for I was called many times and I would not hear; therefore I knew concerning these things, yet I would not know;

 

When I heard this father's story, this is a scripture that came to my mind when he shared with me his experience. Now, we are not going to the state of heart that continues in the verse where Amulek says he went on rebelling and was in wickedness. It is the notion how God is able to call and people not hear. If we cannot here, when God calls, we then harden our heart against that thing.

I do like your thought though. The mind and heart. It reminds me of what Richard G. Scott said to us on my mission. He said, paraphrased, write down your thoughts so your mind doesn't confuse the Spirit that comes to your heart.

I am interested in your separation of heart and mind in light of that verse. Thank you.

[Guest Mores]

17 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In light of your thought, would you further clarify in light of this from Amulek:

I first offer the disclaimer that I'm operating somewhat blind here on your example, for obvious reasons.  So, I could be completely off base.

If we can interject a bit of Freud into the discussion: The Id and Ego "tell" you something which the Superego will weigh and pass judgment upon (or did I get those backwards?).  I do not believe these are necessarily the shoulder angel and shoulder devil.  I believe there are simply thoughts and pieces of data that float through our minds all the time.  (Now introduce D&D into it) Some are chaotic. Some are lawful. Some are evil. Some are good.  Some are neutral.  But the superego must decide what to act upon.  The superego must decide what is to be accepted and what is rejected.

The simple presence of a thought does not mean we accept it.  As a conservative who reads a lot on both sides of the aisle, I'm very aware of the tenets of the left, and what their arguments and justifications are.  But I reject most of it.  Amulek had been given knowledge.  But the wisdom to enact that knowledge was not where his superego took him, until the time where he was prepared to meet Alma.

That's the best I can do in the time I have.  I realize there are a lot of threads that still need connecting.  But I believe you can make those connections with some pondering.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Mores

[wenglund]

 

56 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am pretty sure I made clear two distinctions/connotations in my previous response regarding the "state of heart" that the Lord did and did not reveal and where I think I assumed you were saying something I did not say. I didn't change anything regarding what I shared.

If the Lord makes an attempt, and that person refuses the attempt, then the heart of that person is not softened. This would be a hard heart, in that thing, in that event. Some on hear are assuming that I was specifying the state of heart as "wicked or good." I made no distinction pertaining to that state of heart. This is what I understood you were specifying previously regarding the Lord revealing the state of a heart. Thus I did not make mention regarding the state of heart I understood you were referring to.

Neither me or the father made any assumption regarding the bosses softened heart. The OP stated, the Lord was with him and that the Lord reached out. The OP stated the one managers hearts were softened while (although the Lord tried) the other was not. That isn't an assumption regarding a softening of heart. That is what happened.

If that doesn't clarify, then we are at odds.

 

Okay. This is helpful. From what I gather, you mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of "wicked or good" when I mentioned the "state of the heart, " when in fact I was  referring to your statements in the OP about the softening or hardness of the heart. 

Now that this mistaken assumption on your part has been corrected, hopefully you can reasonably see that you were also mistaken in assuming that I was making assumptions rather than taking you at your word.

Whew, with that now out of the way, lets move on to your core two-part question, which I have taken the liberty to rephrase  in a way I find more cogent and useful

Why would a practicing member of Christ's Church defy the whispered will of God, whereas a former member complied with the whispering? And, is this ironic?

There are number of speculative permutations that can be proffered,  some of which may be  viewed as ironic.

For example, if we charitably assume that the practicing member may have reasonably lacked certitude that the whispering was from God rather than a whim prompted by what was for dinner or even personal torn sentiments of rocks and hard places (not uncommon conclusions), whereas the whispering to the former member may have comported perfectly with his personal sentiments and thus not be viewed as a whispering,  then one may chalk it up to reasonable coincidence rather than  irony.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2019 by wenglund

[Anddenex]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

 

Okay. This is helpful. From what I gather, you mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of "wicked or good" when I mentioned the "state of the heart, " when in fact I was  referring to your statements in the OP about the softening or hardness of the heart. 

Now that this mistaken assumption on your part has been corrected, hopefully you can reasonably see that you were also mistaken in assuming that I was making assumptions rather than taking you at your word.

Yes, I thought I made that clear in my original response to your clarification, but my writing skills were wanting. I understood you were mentioning a state of heart as wicked and good. This lead to my thoughts that you were making an assumption.

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Whew, with that now out of the way, lets move on to your core two-part question, which I have taken the liberty to rephrase  in way I find more cogent and useful

Why would a practicing member of Christ's Church defy the whispered will of God, whereas a former member complied with the whispering? And, is this ironic?

There are number of speculative permutations that can be proffered,  some of which may be  viewed as ironic.

For example, if we charitably assume that the practicing member may have reasonably lacked certitude that the whispering was from God rather than a whim prompted by what was for dinner or even personal torn sentiments of rocks and hard places (not uncommon conclusions), whereas the whispering to the former member may have comported perfectly with his personal sentiments and thus not be viewed as a whispering,  then one may chalk it up to reasonable coincidence rather than  irony.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

True. The explanation then would be coincidence and not irony in light of your example. Let me see if I can clarify appropriately what I know regarding these two situations that may not have been specified before.

1) In both examples the father was going to be laid off.

2) The Lord reached out to both parties (managers involved)

3) The day the father was going to be let go (first example) although the Lord reached out nothing changed. The father was still let go.

4) The day the father was going to be let go (he was on the list and the managers before then had previously agreed to let him go, severance and HR papers were already filled out) the managers changed their mind and then fought to keep him employed. Their heart agreed previously that the father was going to be let go. The day of, something changed their heart (softened heart) and they fought for this father to remain employed.

The irony, in my mind, is that as practicing (temple recommend holding) members you would think that we would be closer to the Spirit and would be able to hear when the Lord is calling. In this case though, it was those who were not practicing who heard the call and then fought for the father.

Is that further clarified?

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

True. The explanation then would be coincidence and not irony in light of your example. Let me see if I can clarify appropriately what I know regarding these two situations that may not have been specified before.

1) In both examples the father was going to be laid off.

2) The Lord reached out to both parties (managers involved)

3) The day the father was going to be let go (first example) although the Lord reached out nothing changed. The father was still let go.

4) The day the father was going to be let go (he was on the list and the managers before then had previously agreed to let him go, severance and HR papers were already filled out) the managers changed their mind and then fought to keep him employed. Their heart agreed previously that the father was going to be let go. The day of, something changed their heart (softened heart) and they fought for this father to remain employed.

The irony, in my mind, is that as practicing (temple recommend holding) members you would think that we would be closer to the Spirit and would be able to hear when the Lord is calling. In this case though, it was those who were not practicing who heard the call and then fought for the father.

Is that further clarified?

Yes,.

However, there is still a bit of ambiguity that necessitates further clarification. What do you mean by "they fought to keep him employed?"Are you saying that in one or both cases the managers didn't have the final say on the firing, but that one set of managers  fought on the last day to change the mind of those who did have the final say? Or  are you saying that in both cases the mangers had the final say, but  one set fought on the last day to back their previous decision out of the firing process?

This may be key. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

One other point to consider: when  "the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children," is it possible that the heart the Lord was referring to was that of the one doing the praying and receiving the help of the Lord, rather than the managers?

I bring this up because, to me, prayers are personal between the God and the person praying, and typically involve guiding the prayer giver in changing his or her heart and mind for the better, rather than whether the Lord may or may not have been successful in changing the hearts of other people. on their behalf

Is it possible that the struggle a person may have  perceiving that their prayers may not have been answered,  might be a function of the hardness of their own heart?

If so, wouldn't that be ironic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

42 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Yes,.

However, there is still a bit of ambiguity that necessitates further clarification. What do you mean by "they fought to keep him employed?"Are you saying that in one or both cases the managers didn't have the final say on the firing, but that one set of managers  fought on the last day to change the mind of those who did have the final say? Or  are you saying that in both cases the mangers had the final say, but  one set fought on the last day to back their previous decision out of the firing process?

This may be key. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First experience, manager made the choice and had the final say. If the manager changed his mind, provided reasons for the change, the decision to let the father go would not have happened.

Second experience, the managers were told specific decisions they were being made, changes to departments. Only two people were going to be kept on board as employees. The father was not one of those employees who was going to be kept. The day of laying-off, the managers changed their minds and then fought with upper management to keep him, whereas they previously agreed with the lay-off.

I think that answers your questions.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, wenglund said:

One other point to consider: when  "the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children," is it possible that the heart the Lord was referring to was that of the one doing the praying and receiving the help of the Lord, rather than the managers?

I bring this up because, to me, prayers are personal between the God and the person praying, and typically involve guiding the prayer giver in changing his or her heart and mind for the better, rather than whether the Lord may or may not have been successful in changing the hearts of other people. on their behalf

Is it possible that the struggle a person may have  perceiving that their prayers may not have been answered,  might be a function of the hardness of their own heart?

If so, wouldn't that be ironic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The easy answer is, no. The answer received was directly connected to the questions the father asked pertaining to his employment. I am sorry, if I go any further, I would be sharing beyond my right to share. I was about to write out what he shared with me, and then realized, that wouldn't be right.

Yes, that would be truly ironic though with what you have suggested, in light of what I have shared.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Anddenex

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The easy answer is, no. The answer received was directly connected to the questions the father asked pertaining to his employment. I am sorry, if I go any further, I would be sharing beyond my right to share. I was about to right out what he shared with me, and then realized, that wouldn't be right.

Yes, that would be truly ironic though with what you have suggested, in light of what I have shared.

I can only speak for myself, when I have struggle under the perception that my prayers weren't being answered, it was because my heart wasn't soft. It is only when I softened my heart that I discovered that my prayers were always being answered.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I can only speak for myself, when I have struggle under the perception that my prayers weren't being answered, it was because my heart wasn't soft. It is only when I softened my heart that I discovered that my prayers were always being answered.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe the way I wrote the OP has caused some to ponder upon a thought that was only for description pertaining to the father's two experiences. The OP isn't concerning how the father felt about unanswered prayers. It was more about when the Lord answered his prayer years later, it is the answer that caused me to ponder the outcome between two scenarios.

I would agree, I could be wrong but I think he would agree, that the length of time from the first experience to the answer he received from the Lord may indeed have been because he was not in the right heart and mind to hear the answer. The Lord may have been trying to answer this prayer a while back. But that isn't the question, nor the OPs thoughts.

I personally have experience with that, and with the words Amulek mentioned. I received an answer to a prayer three years later. After I received this answer the Spirit then brought back to my remembrance how the Lord had already given me the answer. I heard, but I would not hear, and I continued for another two years frustrated over that experience. If I had remained humble, I would have heard the Lord two years prior. This isn't the same scenario though with this father.

[JohnsonJones]

I do not know the situation and cannot comment on it as I am ignorant of the actual details.  I don't know regarding the situation itself.  It could be that the bosses were led of the Lord, or it could be that they were not.

I will note that we tend to defend those who we see as Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without fail.  I think this is a good thing.  It is good to defend our own.

I WILL NOTE though, that just because people are members of the Church does NOT mean they are actually GOOD people.

Some of the WORST people (and I've known individuals from all over the world from many different cultures and nations) I have EVER met have been those who are Members.  On the otherhand some of the best people I've ever met have also been members.  There are Members of the church out there that I've seen more evil done than I've seen done by those who are not members to the point that I would classify them as being straight up evil.  I could very well buy into the idea that there are those that do not feel the spirit or are inspired by it when they should, even if they feel it sometimes.

Of course, to counter that, I've also known some of the BEST people who are also Members.  They really did exemplify the idea that we should be Saints, as they really were Saints.

Just because one is a Member and has been given the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily mean that they always listen to it or that it always guides them.

Even those who normally listen to the Spirit and are good and are Saints sometimes may also stumble.  They normally probably realize it and repent, but even the best of people sometimes probably also stumble.  I probably stumble more often than I should, but I strive to try to be one of the Saints.  I hope many would consider me good but it possible that there are those who also consider me evil.  I, personally, try to do good, and when I stumble, try to repent as best I can and continue forward.

Simply put, people tend to be people.

Edited March 21, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

26 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

First experience, manager made the choice and had the final say. If the manager changed his mind, provided reasons for the change, the decision to let the father go would not have happened.

Second experience, the managers were told specific decisions they were being made, changes to departments. Only two people were going to be kept on board as employees. The father was not one of those employees who was going to be kept. The day of laying-off, the managers changed their minds and then fought with upper management to keep him, whereas they previously agreed with the lay-off.

I think that answers your questions.

It certainly helps. Just out of curiosity, n the second case,  since only two people were intended to be kept, was one of the two who were originally planned to be kept, ultimately laid off in place of your acquaintance?

From what you have since clarified, there appears to me to be an increasing number of relevant differences between the  two cases, and I suspect were we able to explore deeper I would find even more differences. 

It is the initial ambiguity of the cases and the additions of the clarified difference and remaining ambiguity, that constrains me from judging one way or another about the supposed irony. 

But, I wish you well in discussing this with others.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Anddenex]

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just because one is a Member and has been given the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily mean that they always listen to it or that it always guides them.

Thank you. I believe this is the crux of what I was posting and the irony I perceived in the two experiences of this father I am acquainted with. Those who were/are practicing members (as to all knowledge are worthy of temple recommends) continued with their decision although the Lord reached out.

Those who were not practicing listened and then fought for the father to keep him employed.

The other statements I agree with.

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It certainly helps. Just out of curiosity, n the second case,  since only two people were intended to be kept, was one of the two who were originally planned to be kept, ultimately laid off in place of your acquaintance?

No, a job was created for the father that wasn't previously available. The other two on the list kept their jobs.

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

From what you have since clarified, there appears to me to be an increasing number of relevant differences between the  two cases, and I suspect were we able to explore deeper I would find even more differences. 

It is the initial ambiguity of the cases and the additions of the clarified difference and remaining ambiguity, that constrains me from judging one way or another about the supposed irony. 

But, I wish you well in discussing this with others.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Thank you for the current discussion.