- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
I understand that it’s not explicit and I know I shouldn’t read into what’s not actually written but… Based on SS manuals, Ensign, etc. it seems obvious what the meaning of this is.
I mean, there’s only one way for the father to provide the “necessities of life”: to work. And, there’s only one way for the mother to “nurture” the children: by staying home. The mother statement is hedged by the word “primarily”. However, there is no such hedge in the father statement.
swim, I will write the post. You’ve left out the part that frames the whole thing – but nearly everyone does it. That’s why I am such a hardcore parser. This relates to the discussion…its a bit long but maybe it can answer the question brought up about God and unfairness to our loved ones in this world. Would like to know what you think: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL IN THE WORLD
President William E. Berrett
An address to Seminary and Institute Faculty
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
June 21, 1960
Every once in a while we read about an item that fills us with sorrow. During war periods many parents receive such a message as the following: AThe Government of the United States regrets to inform you that they have now officially confirmed the fact that your son=s ship went down with all aboard during a convoy to Russia.@ Immediately the point of the knife is in the hearts of the mother, father, and relatives. We read about some undue accident that has taken the finest of our neighbors away and we wonder at a world in which there seems to be such little relationship between what happens to us and how we live. Or we read about an experience such as Dr. Sizoo described some years ago. By the way, the little book Making Life Worth Living by Dr. Sizoo, written some years ago (1937), and published by McMillan Company, is a good little book for your library. He writes:
One time I was standing at midnight by a little white cot in a children=s hospital. A little child I knew was suffering intense pain. All the wisdom of the world seemed of no avail in diagnosing the malady. A most eminent surgeon and physician had been called in for consultation. They were not sure what was the cause of the pain. One of them thought he knew, but if his diagnosis was correct, he knew of no cure. The other was not even sure of the cause. Others had been called, but had walked away shaking their heads saying, AWe can do nothing.@ The little child was moaning for relief. I suggested to the mother and father that we pray, asking God to give wisdom to the surgeon, and that we commend their only child to the keeping of a God whose ways, though past finding out, are always of love. Then the mother turned to me sharply and said, AYou can=t pray here to your God who lets a little child like this suffer. I wouldn=t treat a dog that way.@
I had a sister-in-law who saw her little three-year-old girl suffer in this fashion and die and in her heart said, AI don=t believe in a God who would thus treat a little child.@ For years she would not step inside a church.
The problem of human suffering is all around us. It is one of the great Christian problems. Far from turning people to God, it seems that in many instances, it turns them away. The great world wars that brought such intense suffering to millions did not, by and large, turn people to God. It turned them away and the Churches in Europe were near empty. I have often thought that it would only take a third world war for all to become infidels. If there is ever a time when it seems that there is no relationship between goodness and life, between the way we live and the way we suffer or escape suffering, it is time of war. During World War I a group of people on the Sabbath day were in the act of worship in a little church in Belgium praying to the Lord for their safety and the safety of their loved ones at the front, when a shell struck and killed some three-fourths of them. You see what that does to human faith. Questions arise, AIs there a God at all?@ If there is, does he care, for He seems oblivious to our cries. And if He cares, has He any power to do anything about it, for seems not to do much about it. If there is a God, why does He permit the murderer to go about his task, the dictator to plunge the world into conflict, to cremate all the inhabitants of cities? If there is a God, why doesn=t he hear our prayers when suffering comes to our own homes?
Well, this raises the whole issue, and I think you are somewhat familiar with it, and the fact that from the dawn of time men have struggled with the problem. It is still with us. I think perhaps Christians who have not been favored with the information which is ours have much more trouble with the problem than we should have. I think some times the use of the words Aomnipotent@ and Aomniscient@ in describing the attributes of God, have brought us misunderstanding and ought not to belong in our vocabulary in treating the attributes of God. They do not arise from scriptures. The words have been introduced by so-called Christians, but I hear them frequently in our own halls. Any use of them in our theology requires us to immediately put limitations upon the words, for if those words without limitations accurately describe the attributes of God, it would be hard indeed for him to escape the responsibility for the evils of the world. But Mormon theology limits God, and in the limitations we place upon him we do not make him responsible for the ills of the world. It is important that we determine whether God wills the calamities, or whether we must accept the fact that He is not responsible for them and weeps with us at our misfortunes.
I am going to read a statement by President B. H. Roberts on the limitations we may place on the use of the words omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, if we are going to use them at all.
Limitation in the Attributes of God: We may now consider somewhat the limitations of the attributes so far named. The Eternity of God may be regarded as absolute. AI am that I am,@ the Eternal One, the Self-existent, admits of no modifications as to his Eternity.
His immutability should be regarded as stability, adherence to principle. What stands among men under the name of Aconstitutional morality,@ fixed devotion to law; and working through law to the achievement of his divine purposes, rather than by caprice, or by arbitrary, personal action. But God=s immutability should not be so understood as to exclude the idea of advancement or progress of God. Thus, for example: God=s kingdom and glory may be enlarged, as more and more redeemed souls are added to his kingdom: as worlds and world-systems are multiplied and redeemed and enrolled with celestial spheres, so God=s kingdom is enlarged and his glory increased. So that in this sense there may come change and progress, even for God. But an absolute immutability would require eternal immobilityCwhich would reduce God to a condition eternally static, which, from the nature of things, would bar him from participation in that enlargement of kingdom and increasing glory that comes from redemption and the progress of men. And is it to bold a thought, that with this progress, even for the Mightiest, new thoughts, and new vistas may appear, inviting to new adventures and enterprises that will yield new experiences, advancement, and enlargement even for the Most High? It ought to be constantly remembered that terms absolute to many may be relative terms to God, so far above our thinking is his thinking; and his ways above our ways.
The attribute Aomnipotence@ must needs be thought upon also as somewhat limited. Even God, notwithstanding the ascription to him of all-powerfulness in such scripture phrases as AWith God all things are possible,@ Anothing shall be impossible with God@Cnotwithstanding all this, I say, not even God may have two mountain ranges without a valley between. Not even God may place himself beyond the boundary of space: nor on the outside of duration. Nor is it conceivable to human thought that he can create space, or annihilate matter. These are things that limit even God=s omnipotence. What then, is meant by the ascription of the attribute omnipotence to God? Simply that all that may or can be done by power conditioned by other eternal existencesCduration, space, matter, truth, and justiceCGod can do. But even he may not act out of harmony with the other eternal existences which condition or limit even him.
So with the all-knowing attribute, omniscience: that must be understood somewhat in the same light as the other attributes considered: not that God is omniscient up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but that all knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows. He is Universal Consciousness, and MindChe is that All-knowing One, because he knows all that is known.
So the attribute Aomnipresence@Cthe Aeverywhere present@ attribute: this must be so far limited as to be ascribed to God=s Spirit, or Influence, or Power; but not of God as a Person or Individual; for in these latter respects even God is limited by the law that one body cannot occupy two places at one and the same time. But radiating from his presence as beams of light and warmth radiate from our sun, is God=s Spirit, penetrating and permeating space, making space and all worlds in space vibrate with his life, and thought, and presence: holding all forces, dynamic and static, under control; making them to subserve his will and purposes.
God also uses other agencies to reflect himself, his power or authority: also his Wisdom, Goodness, Justice, and MercyCangels and arch-angels, both in heaven and on earth; and in the earth prophets, apostles, teachersCall that make for uplift, for righteousness; all that catch some ray of the divine Spirit in poem, music, painting, sculpture, state-craft or mechanical artsCall these but reflect God and are a means of multiplying and expressing him, the Divine. And in a special way, as witness for God, and under very special conditions, the holy Ghost, that Being accounted the Third Person of the GodheadChe reflects and stands for God, his Power and Wisdom; his Justice, Truth and MercyCfor all that can be or is called God, or is God. All these means, direct and indirect, convey God into the universe, and keep him every-where present in all his essentials of Wisdom, of it all. President Brigham H. Roberts, AThe Atonement,@ The Seventy=s Course in Theology. (4th year) pp. 69-71.
We come to the question, if God does not will evil in the world, how does it happen, what is its meaning. Evil falls into two main categories. One is evil that comes from what we sometimes call natural causes: a storm wrecks a ship at sea and all are lost; an individual wanders into the frozen north without sufficient food and clothing and is frozen to death; a hurricane sweeps across the mainland of America and destroys lives; a tidal wave strikes the country of Chili and thousands perish. Storm and flood, cold and heat, tidal waves, beasts of prey, the tiger that raids the village, the snake that strikes its poisonous fangs into a childCall of these constitute one type of calamity, or evil, if you will, although some would not call them evil in the world. In regard to these natural calamities, many writers find justification in them because they impel man to effort to overcome them. They teach us how to live in the world we are in. The cyclone teaches us to build cyclone cellars, to set up weather observation points so that people will be warned.
The tidal wave that struck the Hawaiian Islands a few years ago with great devastation of life and property taught certain lessons so that when the last tidal wave struck the island, very few lives were lost. There was considerable property damage, but the very fact that a tidal wave was possible caused men on the islands to exert themselves, to exercise the mind, to devise ways of signaling the danger before it arrives.
There is progress in human thinking because of the natural calamities of the earth. I suppose even the tiger raiding the villages of India causes men to devise ways to capture and kill the tiger. The crop pests that a generation ago destroyed some of the great crops in the south led to the erection of laboratories where men devised ways to meet the problem. The very nature of the universe in which we live compels us to think and develop the mind in a manner that would not be done if the problems did not exist. So far as natural calamities are concerned, we perhaps find them beneficial as well as destructive. We have more difficulty in making explanations when we come to disease over which we have so little control, and yet even here the existence of micro-organisms and viruses that affect the human body have impelled mankind to tremendous research in an effort to conquer these destructive forces.
Of course the experience gained from some natural calamity does not do much good to the person who perishes. The individual who was lost in the first tidal wave does not get much value out of the experience gained by humanity that enables future people to escape, and such calamities would raise tremendous problems if we did not believe that we live again. One could find little justification for the natural calamities except in the perpetuity of the soul of man, for you would have part of humanity becoming victims of calamity solely for the benefit of future humanity.
Many calamities are of another nature. They come upon us because of the acts of men; the machinations of the human mind; the scheming of one man to get the property of his neighbor by killing him; the greed which prompts acts so that the innocent man becomes the victim of a vicious neighbor. What are the causes of these difficulties? I am going to begin by asking you, what kind of world you would build if you were God? I might say, having lived in this world, what kind are you going to build if and when you become God? What corrections will you make? Will you avoid the hurricane, the tidal wave, cold, the heat that destroys human life? If you do you will have a world without law. This is the first thing we would have to determine. Are you going to create a world governed by physical laws and allow those laws to operate? For if you do, you are going to have existing upon your earth heat and cold, wind and storm, volcanos and earthquakes, for they result from the operation of laws. If you don=t have law, can you progress? If two and two do not always make four, but sometimes make five, you would destroy by that one item practically all of our science and that which has grown out of it.
If milk is good for you to drink this morning, but on Thursday mornings it is poisonous, the results would be rather disastrous. The intricacies of natural law are so marvelous that scientists are opening up new fields to human comprehension and standing aghast at the immensity of space and the reliability of law. I think all of us would quickly come to the conclusion that, if we were building a world we would have to have a world that was reliableCa world of law. There could be no learning otherwise. Certain causes must produce certain results. Heavenly bodies must move in mathematically correct orbits. The law of the attraction of mass must be constant. That which we throw up from the earth into the air must be pulled back to the earth and this must always be so, even though the operation of that law when I jump from a building may take me to my death. Without such law I could not remain on the earth for I would be thrown off into space.
We can easily discern that because this is a world of law we face the possibilities of progress and the possibilities of calamity.
Secondly, the question would come, In a world of law are you going to compel men to obey the law so that no one would get hurt or are you going to give men their freedom to do as they please? Now we have discussed somewhat what we know of the plan before the earth was made. It appears that these matters were discussed in the heavens and there were those among us who felt that even though we created a world of law we ought to compel people to keep the law. We wouldn=t give them their free agency. I think right here we ought to distinguish between two terms: freedom of will and free agency, for they are not the same thing. Freedom of will implies that there is something in the individual that God did not create. We speak of it as intelligence, and in the 93rd section of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord tells us that it was Anot created nor made, neither indeed can be,@ that man was in the beginning as an intelligence; that we are co-eternal with God, that something within us that was so independent that in the heavens we could rebel against him if we would; a will that is independent of God that can frustrate the will of God so far as the individual is concerned. Now you might not always be able to do the thing that you will to do, but will power is a different thing than agency. It is circumvented by many things. We are prevented from doing what we want to do because of the environment in which we live, the various circumstances that are around us socially, and the limitations of our physical bodies.
Agency is another matter. Agency involves relationships of individuals to each other. In the law we have a whole field that we call the field of agency, the relationship of one person to another, giving one person power to act in your behalf; conferring certain liberties to act upon his own. The laws of agency define those relationships. When we talk about free agency in a religious sense, we are talking about the relationship between God and man. This relationship affects our responsibility and God=s responsibility. The Lord has said he has given unto man his free agency. In other words, he has allowed us to do what we please to do in this world. He has not circumscribed us. The law might circumscribe us. The society in which we live might not give us our free agency. You try to run a red light down town this morning and you might find that you do not have your free agency in this city, but that you will be stopped from doing certain things. But, God won=t stop you. He will let you run the red light and he won=t strike you dead. He won=t send a bolt of lightning upon you if you run every red light in the city at 150 miles an hour. You can do as you please. The Lord has said that in these temporal things he has given no commandment, only spiritual commandments. In this whole temporal world he has not given commandments. You can jump off of it if you want to, and he won=t stop you. This is one of the conditions of life on this earth. You have your free agency so far as God is concerned. This is not so where your neighbor is concerned. He might prevent your throwing your trash on his yard, but the Lord won=t prevent your doing it. Now, if you can get that distinction in mind it will be helpful when you discuss the matter of free agency, and you need to keep in mind the difference between free agency and freedom of will, which constitutes you independence of everything in the universe.
Now a question arises, would you give your descendants on your world free agency? Well, I suppose so. At least you have argued it out sometime in the pre-existent world and come to the conclusion that free agency was good or you would have followed after Satan who planned otherwise. I don=t know whether you have changed your mind since coming into this life. But, you do need to understand the freedom God has granted you. Your freedom is so great that you can even deny God exists. You can pray or not pray. You can obey his Sabbath or profane his Sabbath. You can do as you please. The Lord won=t stop you. We have always had people who wanted God to regulate our lives, to stop people from doing evil. We had those who wondered why he didn=t stop those who crucified his son. If there was ever a time when you would have supposed he would have stepped in, it would have been then. Individuals came to Jesus you remember with this problem, and he told them the parable of the wheat and the tares. The sower went forth to sow and the enemy came after him and sowed weeds among the wheat and these grew up and choked out the wheat. Then came the laborer of the vineyard and wanted to root out the weeds, to strike down this wicked man in your city, run him over the cliff, get rid of the evil one. And we have those who want the Lord to take immediate vengeance upon the wicked. You remember the Savior having the owner of the vineyard say A…Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.@ (Matt. 13:29-30) There will come a judgment. There will come a separation of those who are wicked and those who are good, but not now. Not in this world; not in this day of living. That doesn=t mean that calamity will not come upon wicked people. There are things that hit them. The Prophet Alma tells us that among the people in his day, the righteous prospered and the wicked did not prosper and then he tells us why, not because the Lord particularly blessed the one and cursed the other, but he said because the unrighteous spent all of their goods in riotous living. (Compare Alma 1:29-32.) There are certain natural laws that catch up with the wicked here. He saw the wicked use their goods in costly apparel, in wild parties, in riotous living, so that as a people they were worse off than those that were righteous. But this is different than having the Lord of the vineyard root out the tares by a direct act of the Lord.
There are occasions recorded where this problem was presented to Jesus:
There were present at the season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
(Luke 13:1-5)
When a tidal wave strikes a city, does it destroy the most wicked ones, and leave the righteous? The Savior would answer, AI say unto you nay, this is no criteria to judge the righteousness of people.@
The author of the book of Job brings this point sharply to our attention. Even though Job=s neighbors had been immersed in the philosophy that calamity follows sin, the account makes clear that the Lord does not strike you down if you have not been obedient. The author made clear that Job had not been disobedient. He was a righteous man, but he suffered more than the neighbors who were not as good as he was. You have seen that in your communities, in your wards, and stakes. It can happen.
We have an account in the Book of Mormon in which the first great general, Moroni, became concerned with the attitude of the people at home because he was in the field and the people at home were not supporting his troops. He wrote to Governor Pahoran one of the great letters, I think, of all time (Alma Chapter 60). That is a bold letter from a commander in the field to the government at home. One of the problems concerned the death of soldiers on the battlefield. Apparently some were saying that the righteous soldier does not get killed, just the unrighteous, and that hurt this great general who was a prophet as well as a general, a man of God. He writes:
Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.
Do ye suppose that, because so many of your brethren have been killed it is because of their wickedness? [Is it just the wicked that are killed on the field of battle?] I say unto you, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain; for I say unto you, there are many who have fallen by the sword; and behold it is to your condemnation.
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked… (Alma 60:11-13)
Now he is stating what any good general would state. Some of our finest boys get killed as well as some of the wicked. Any of you who have had anything to do with war know how true that is. You may recall that in 1942 the First Presidency issued a statement from the Salt Lake Temple, with President David O. McKay as the spokesman, advising this people not to promise boys who go away to war that they will come home if they will keep the commandments of the Lord. To repeat his words in part:
In this terrible war now waging thousands of our righteous young men in all parts of the world and in many countries are subject to a call into the military service of their own countries. Some of these, so serving, have already been called back to their heavenly home; others will almost surely be called to follow. But >behold=, as Moroni said, the righteous of them who serve and are slain >do enter into the rest of the Lord their God,= and of them the Lord has said Athose that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them.@ (D&C 42:46) Berrett and Burton, AMessage of the First Presidency, April 6, 1942,” Readings in LDS History Vol. 3, p. 310.
No, the Lord does not take away free agency of the righteous or the wicked. But what Mormon said about the righteous who are killed, AWherefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain.@ This is the important thing. AFor behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God.@ He wasn=t so concerned about the righteous who were killed as he was about the unrighteous who were slain, so far as the eternities were concerned
I want to read another passage from the book of Alma, Chapter 14, because it throws light on this whole problem. Alma and Amulek, serving as missionaries for the Church, had converted quite a number of people in the land where they were laboring when the non-members rose up en-masse and seized the converts, tied them to the stake and burned them, they tied Alma and Amulek to stakes where they had to watch the ordeal in order that they might see the effect of their coming into this land as missionaries.
Now that is pretty tough, isn=t it? After you had converted people, to be tied to a stake and forced to see them killed before your eyes. To read, beginning at verse 10:
And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and the children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. [This is quite a situation.]
But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand;…
He doesn=t doubt the power of God to do itCthe power of the Priesthood in him to stay the wickedness. AThe Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand, for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself in glory.@
We don=t get quite so disturbed if we can see beyond; if we have understanding:
…and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14:11)
How can you judge man if you are constantly interfering with him in his actions? How can you condemn men if they do only that which you order them to do and are restrained from doing that which would be wrong? But it seems that there are people who want the Lord to step-in these circumstances to stop war, to stop individuals who are rampaging against their neighbors, and these can find no peace and serenity of thought concerning the problem unless they understand the eternity of things. We cannot, from what we see in this world, find justice, for justice requires an existence beyond this one. Under free agency an individual may take a shotgun and go down the street and in the world of law if he pulls the trigger, and the shell fires, it is going to be pretty hard on the person that it hits, even though innocent. Every once in a while we read of a man thus going berserk and killing several before he is downed. This is a world of law and a world of free agency, but it is also a world of something elseCa world with people in it. Could we live absolutely alone on our island, things might be different.
You know Daniel Defoe, in his story Robinson Caruso, tells us that Robinson Caruso never knew fear upon his lonely island until he found the footprint of a man. Somehow, in that sentence he strikes at the heart of one of our problems. Some of the tragedies of life come from living with others, but would we live otherwise than where there are the footprints of man? Do we want to live alone? Would you create a world and isolate your people on separate islands?
The greatest growth comes from association with others. This association is productive of almost all the growth we have. I cannot imagine creating a world of hermits. Out of these three things; the world of law, the free agency of man, and the intermingling of human lives, comes all the evil and calamity of the world. I think we have to come to an agreement that this is the kind of world we want despite calamities. But, we also need to come to an understanding so that when calamities strike they do not destroy the faith that is in us. We need to retain the faith of Job as finally expressed in those words, Athough after my skin worms destroy this body [though the ultimate come upon it] yet in my flesh shall I see God.@ (Job 19:26)
We need to catch the spirit of the 121 and 122 sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, in which even a prophet of God, the Prophet Joseph Smith, began to wonder why the Lord did not take a direct hand in human events. He who was hearing each day of the troubles of his people, the ravaging of the women of the Church by their enemies, and the dire threats against human life, appealed to the Lord, AO God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place? How long shall thy hand be stayed…@ That was the sentence, AHow long shall thy hand be stayed@ [When, O Lord, will you step in?] Now the Lord did not step in, but he brought understanding to Joseph. Sometimes we bring understanding by referring to things with which we are familiar. The Lord uses two. H said, AThou art not yet as Job, thy friends do stand by thee,@ and Job=s friends, you remember, left him. His wife wanted him to curse God and die. So he isn=t quite as bad off as Job. And then he uses another example, AThe Son of man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than He?@ The wicked were allowed to take the Master=s life without the Lord stepping in. Should he step in here? Joseph got understanding, and with understanding he got peace of mind. God is not responsible for the evil of the world. We must not blame him for the death of a loved one. We must not say it was God=s will that this accident occurred; that this calamity struck and human lives were lost. If you have God willing the evil, in my mind you have destroyed him. All too often we hear in funeral services the statement that this was the will of the Lord. He has called the person home. Well, he calls home very good souls when they go as Alma said, AHe receiveth them up in His glory,@ when they are righteous, but to say that he willed the death, that he wanted the truck driver to strike the child who dashed out in front of the truck, is to impute evil to the Lord.
When the Lord describes the coming millennium, the day of peace upon the earth, he describes the day when children will not die in their youth, but will live to the age of a tree. That is the ideal situation. That is what the Lord would want for all of us. Well, certainly the righteous person who is struck down by calamity, by disease, by the sin of a neighbor, is received up into glory. And, just as Alma had no worry about the righteous soldiers slain on the field of battle, so we can find our consolation in times of death in our understanding of the Gospel.
Now, we have a passage in the 42nd section of the Doctrine and Covenants with which I think you are familiar, and I can just briefly refer to it and do some paraphrasing. It indicates that when we are sick we should call for the elders of the Church, and they should pray over the individual, and the prayer of faith will raise him up, if he has sufficient faith. The Lord divides those who are administered to into three classes; first, those who have not enough faith to be healed. That is probably the largest class. They call the elders, but they have not enough faith to be healed. Nevertheless, they are urged to call the elders because it does indicate their attitude, their desire to be in tune with the Lord, even though the faith is weak. And, the Lord said of such that if they died, they died unto Him. They recognized Him, they wanted His help, so it is good to call in the elders even if the faith is not sufficient to heal. Then there is the group who have sufficient faith and are healed, and then he refers to the third group, using this one phrase, Aunless they are appointed unto death.@ This is part of the class having faith enough to be healed, but still die, not part of the larger class that did not have faith enough to be healed at all. But, even part of those who had faith enough to be healed would not be healed said the Lord, if they were appointed unto death. That little phrase, Aappointed unto death,@ has been used so freely that I am sure that we have been in some error concerning its use. It indicates, of course, that some are appointed to die. We may say all are appointed to die. When? I refer to the millennium when men will reach the age of a tree, if you will, whatever the life of a tree is. I hope it lives longer than some I have planted. The term, evidently, was used to refer to some age, and I would like the giant redwoods to be the example. But, even all, saith the scriptures, are appointed unto death. All must die, for death came upon all the race. So, the time comes when the body is worn out. I had a neighbor, a man of tremendous faith. He was seriously ill many times. He called in the elders and they administered unto him. He got well almost immediately time and time again throughout his life. I have never listened to a testimony so strong as his regarding the power of the priesthood to call in the healing arts of the Lord, but the time came when he called in the elders and he died. He was 90 years old. You do not keep a man alive forever. He was in the category of those who had faith to be healed, but was appointed unto death. He had lived out his life.
I think we should be careful about saying that a little infant was appointed unto death. There are one or two statements in the early history of the Church where the Prophet Joseph indicates that there are some, other than the old, who might be so appointed unto death, and those statements being there you can=t close the issue. But, I am sure that you should not extend too greatly the group that he has called before they have lived out their lives. The Lord teaches us in a multitude of ways to prolong human life. He teaches us what to eat, and what to refrain from eating. We are urged by the Church to take every precaution in the matter of health that we might live long lives. Usually when we don=t, it is because we have become foul of the law or we have been unwise in the exercise of free agency, or we have fallen by the hand of the neighbor who has been unwise in his exercise of free agency, and so we are destroyed.
I was going to consider some of the limitations of God in his dealings with man. God is limited because man has his free will, because man is co-eternal with God. There is that about man that is independent of God. With that Mormon concept you cannot but limit God=s power over the individual. He is also limited by the right and wrong way of doing things, by law. In other words, God has virtually said that if he does not operate according to law, then he is not God. God himself is subject to law; that is, there is a right way and wrong way. There is a way things can be done and a way things cannot be done. As one missionary put it to a heckler in the crowd who wanted God to be able to do everything, ACan God make a valley without a hill?, *Can he make a weight that cannot be lifted, and then lift it?@ Well, these may be a little facetious as answers, but they bring into consciousness a recognition that intelligence finds a certain way for things to be done, and they must be done that way. The laws cannot be changed at the capricious whim, even of a God.
End
I am the father of five amazing children. I totally love my five children unconditionally. And so it is was great difficulty I struggle with the concept that Heavenly Father is conditional. He is conditional to the point of having hidden his saving religion so that only .0001 of the world’s population has accepted it. He is the conditional to the point that even the vast array of Christians (1/3 of the world’s population) are affiliated with branches of Christianity who don’t have authority to baptize their followers. He is conditional to wanting dark skins to turn white through righteous living (disregarding the idea folks may like their skin color). He doesn’t sound like my father, or grandfather, who gave me examples of loving their offspring. I try to love Him, but sometimes I wonder if I even really like Him? Salvation for the dead seems a strange concept to me. All the promises/covenants we make in the temple generally relate to living people. Consecration, chastity, etc. Are these really issues that dead people are concerned about. Also why are we in such a rush to get all this work done. If every Mormon went to the temple every day I am not sure you could keep up with just everyone who is dying on a daily basis. It seems an uphill battle. Cadence wrote:Salvation for the dead seems a strange concept to me. All the promises/covenants we make in the temple generally relate to living people. Consecration, chastity, etc. Are these really issues that dead people are concerned about. Also why are we in such a rush to get all this work done. If every Mormon went to the temple every day I am not sure you could keep up with just everyone who is dying on a daily basis. It seems an uphill battle.
That’s an interesting point, Cadence. I have also thought that if we have the Eternities where there is no end of time…what’s the rush to get all the work done? We got plenty of time.I would think that things like Chastity could be eternal principles. If the dead rise again with resurrected bodies, maybe chastity still applies. It could be something where it is in a different form…but similar principle. Like there is no need for sex but the principle of loyalty and commitment to a relationship could still exist (of course, then there is also the polygamy thing to figure in which just complicates the thoughts even more
By studying about it…has it been a blessing to try to reconcile or figure it out in any way?
George wrote:I struggle with the concept that Heavenly Father is conditional.
George, good point. The math doesn’t seem to add up, does it. Especially with a belief that He is the All Mighty God…surely an all-powerful God and all loving Father could find a more effective way to get the statistics up on the conditions laid out.Have you ever thought there are more than one way…that for you and me, we are taught one way and will be accountable for the conditions set before us…but that doesn’t mean those are universal conditions for all?
Heber13 wrote:George wrote:
Have you ever thought there are more than one way…that for you and me, we are taught one way and will be accountable for the conditions set before us…but that doesn’t mean those are universal conditions for all?I have thought about this a lot. I know with my own kids, I have to deal with my oldest differently than others. He has challenges the others don’t and he’ll push me farther than the others will. I know that I have felt spirit “commands” if you want to call them that, that had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else or even a scripture in the good book. But I can tell you I felt consequenses when I didn’t obey. Holy OUCH batman!
I don’t though know quite how to view the rest of the world and all of these religions. Is it the case of lots of roads lead to exhaltation? OR….is it that God knows how to have universal conditions but judge each person or group according to their abilities, knowledge, opportunities…..etc.?
I think I feel like I am a good example of what you are talking about Heber. It’s one of the reasons I can’t leave the church. If all churches were good, then my picking any one of them wouldn’t matter. But my insides go crazy when I think about it. I can’t escape my testimony. I feel so very strongly God is holding me to that. Maybe the trick is not superimposing this singular experience with anyone else. But it might feel good to know I wasn’t alone either.
Quote:Have you ever thought there are more than one way…that for you and me, we are taught one way and will be accountable for the conditions set before us…but that doesn’t mean those are universal conditions for all?
Fwiw, that’s official Mormon doctrine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.