Did the Almighty arrange for George W. Bush to gain office, and did He set into motion the events that led to the 'liberation' of Iraq?
I'd be interested to know how many people honestly believe this and how many think it's ludicrous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments:
By events that were sent in motion, are you including the attack on the WTC?
oh i refuse to comment on this because it will make me look anti american which i am not...
If God had any interest in politics, the NDP party wouldn't exist.
So no.
Well Kim, I guess we shouldn't rule out the possibility that He had a hand in the events at the WTC.
The lord has his reasons for doing things. I can't help but think that it is entirely possible that Dubya is there for a reason, regardless of how I feel about it.
At the same time, the lord allows us to make our own mistakes, even if is something as big as electing a president.
No.
In answer to Rick's question, I think it's ludicrous.
Claiming to have the omniscience required to make this declaration is ludicrous. It's ludicrous to say "I know God set this in motion" and it's ludicrous to say "I know God didn't have anything to do with this."
Itbugaf, declaring God's involvement in or position on something does not imply omniscience.
The fact that the our church makes no such declaration in this case illustrates a conundrum: We know what God's position is on tea and tattoos, but we don't know what he thinks about much weightier matters like the war. Why is that?
ltbugaf, is that similar to saying 'I know the church is true'?
...and Will, I do find it odd that the membership knows precisely how many earrings they can wear but there has been no statement about how God views the liberation of Iraq.
mark me down for ludicrous
ok i can't help it.
like i have said before, the Lord allows things to happen and let us make our own choices. no matter how stupid they may be. sometimes He intervenes, but usually He lets us learn from our own mistakes. or at least sometimes people learn from their own mistakes.
unless of course, He allowed GDB to be eleected because He wanted to teach the US a lesson??
I am not SAYING that's why. Just bringing up a thought is all.
As tyranny falls and democracy is set into place, the gates will open and the path for missionary work will slowly begin to be set. We are doing the Lord's work.
Eric, you had me going. For a minute there I thought you were talking about jihad.
Will: The original post didn't ask what God thinks of the war, but whether God acted to set up President Bush in office or set in motion the events leading to the war.
There is someone authorized to declare whether God did these things, if God chooses to tell us. God speaks on these matters, if he chooses to, through his Prophet.
The reason we don't know what the Lord did or did not do as far as setting up President Bush or the War is that He has not chosen to give President Hinckley anything to declare on the matter.
The reason we know what the Lord wants us to do in regard to tobacco and tattoos is that the Lord HAS given President Hinckley something to declare on the matter.
So perhaps it isn't claiming omniscience as it is claiming to know God's mind and will better than God's Prophet. The claim is equally ludicrous.
Rick: "is that similar to saying 'I know the church is true'?"
No. The Lord has already said something very definite on this subject to us, through his Prophets. He's given everyone the opportunity to obtain a testimony that what the Prophets say on that subject is right. He hasn't said anything through his Prophets in regard to whether he set any events in motion vis-a-vis President Bush or the Iraq War.
sorry that's GDB
doing the Lord's work in Iraq? hmmm....
"As tyranny falls and democracy is set into place, the gates will open and the path for missionary work will slowly begin to be set. We are doing the Lord's work."
Because that's what freedom means ... being like America, right?
This is just the first step in an ongoing campaign to make every country believe in the correct way of living. The American way.
i want to be irish
I want to be Irish?? Mary bite your tongue!! I know that MUST have been a typo and you REALLY meant to say I want to be French right???
And when did the Lord say anything about tatoos? Did I miss reading that scripture? I really need to stop reading them while watching the West Wing
"And when did the Lord say anything about tatoos?"
When the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve advised us not to have them.
“I seek only to call your attention to that silver thread, small but radiant with hope, shining through the dark tapestry of war—namely, the establishment of a bridgehead, small and frail now; but which somehow, under the mysterious ways of God, will be strengthened, and from which someday shall spring forth a great work affecting for good the lives of large numbers of our Father’s children who live in that part of the world. Of that I have certain faith.”
Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about the Viet Nam war.
The June 1973 Ensign has an interesting article about the church and Viet Nam, and the role of the US military in establishing the church there.
“I seek only to call your attention to that silver thread, small but radiant with hope, shining through the dark tapestry of war—namely, the establishment of a bridgehead, small and frail now; but which somehow, under the mysterious ways of God, will be strengthened, and from which someday shall spring forth a great work affecting for good the lives of large numbers of our Father’s children who live in that part of the world. Of that I have certain faith.”
Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about the Viet Nam war. The Ensign from June 1973 has an interesting article about the role of the US military in establishing the church in southeast Asia.
ltbugraf,
Does this mean you also believe the advisory for women to have only one pair of earrings also came from the Lord?
Kim: It's L-T-B-U-G-A-F
Yes. I believe when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve tell us what we should do, their instructions reflect what the Lord wants them to tell us.
Apologies for the misspelling (for the past, and likely the future) of your nickname.
I see it differently. I honestly do not believe the Lord is concerned with how many earrings a woman wears. Why would he be given his attitude toward the pharisees?
I don't share your view that President Hinckley is being Pharisaical.
I don't know why the Lord's anointed servants told us to do this. I was surpised that they did. The fact is, they still did, and your pretensions to know the mind of God better than they do are not very convincing.
Why are you always so intent on putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about President Hinckley being pharisaical, nor did I profess to know the mind of the Lord.
As always, feel free to respond to my comments, but if you do, be sure it's my comments to which you respond and not your interpretations of them.
Kim, you obviously DO claim to know the mind of the Lord when you say he's not interested in something. And since your opinion of what God is interested in seems to conflict with what his Prophets and Apostles have said, it's obvious you must view your opinion as being superior to theirs. What other inferences could I possibly draw?
First of all, my exact words were: I honestly do not believe the Lord is concerned with how many earrings a woman wears.
I was simply stating my belief, and certainly not starting it as fact as you suppose I did.
"your opinion of what God is interested in seems to conflict with what his Prophets and Apostles have said"
Not really. Why can't the prophets and apostles say something to which the Lord is indifferent? I am not sure why you seem to portray everything as black or white.
"I never said anything about President Hinckley being pharisaical"
But you did say, in your 9:12 post, that concern over something like earrings is Pharisaical. And since Gordon B. Hinckley is the man who is standing at the Conference Center pulpit and telling women to wear no more than one pair of earrings, he's concerned about it. So what was I supposed to think?
No I did not. I said given the way the Lord approached Pharisees, why would he concern himself with something like the number of earrings a woman wears.
While there may be similarities to pharisaism and the policy of restricting the number of earrings a person wears, that's not to say they are the same thing.
By the way, here's my ALTERNATIVE ANSWER to your question, "Does this mean you also believe the advisory for women to have only one pair of earrings also came from the Lord?"
I don't care. See D&C 1:38
I suppose this means your interpretation of D&C 1:38 is that everything that comes from the mouth of the prophets and apostles is the same as if it comes from the Lord.
More specifically, their INSTRUCTIONS made in the exercise of their offices and Priesthood keys. Yes, I try to treat those the same as if Christ had told me himself.
And I don't do a great job at it. I'm glad there's an Atonement.
Given your comments of late, I am not surprised you take a popular view on this passage.
I, on the other hand, tend to take a more literal interpretation of the passage. That is, I believe it is saying that whether his word is fulfilled through himself or his servants, it is the same thing.
"...you take a popular view on this passage."
I don't know whether this means you believe my loyalty to the Prophet, or my determination to follow his instructions and counsel, is somehow motivated by popularity. I hope not.
"I... take a more literal interpretation of the passage."
I can't agree that this interpretation is more literal. It's less literal. You say the Lord is talking about the fulfillment rather than the words--that it doesn't matter whether his words are fulfilled by him or by a servant. But he says, "by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants," not "by me or by my servants." He's talking about voices. Voices speak words. They seldom do the fulfilling of the words. It's far more literal, and more intuitive, to say that he's talking about the words rather than the fulfillment.
Agreed. Restated:
I, on the other hand, tend to take a more literal interpretation of the passage. That is, I believe it is saying that whether his word is fulfilled through his voice or the voice of his servants, it is the same thing.
I still think it's more reasonable to say that he's simply talking about whether the WORDS--which is the topic of the passage--come directly from him or from his servants. Not least because there are so few situations in which more words would be the fulfillment of his former words. Usually the fulfillment would be an event or action.
Strictly speaking, the prepositional phrases starting with by must be modifying something, and fulfilled seems like the best candidate. But that's irrelevant because the scriptures aren't strict with language, and also because nobody really believes that God's servants are authoritatively equal to God. Everyone who subscribes to the popular interpretation, including Itbugaf, adds extrascriptural qualifiers to the verse, which disqualifies them from playing the literalness card.
He's talking not just about words, but about the permanency of his words. He says that they will not pass away like the havens and earth will pass away. He says that all his words will be fulfilled. And he says that the permanency is not dependent on who says it. If he speaks his word directly, or through his servants, they will still be fulfilled.
If anything, this scripture is not saying that everything that comes from the mouth of the general authorities is as if it came from the mouth of the Lord. It's not that superficial.
When these anointed leaders speak to us, exercising their Priesthood keys and the authority of their offices, and tell us to do something, I think I need to follow their instructions, whether I personally think the instruction came by direct revelation from God or whether I personally think the instruction involved, to one degree or another, the leaders' own thinking. Hence, the "I don't care."
But as I stated before, I DO think that when Prophets and Apostles issue instructions, they don't do so lightly, and they don't do so without both seeking and receiving at least some degree of inspiration on the matter. Hence, I do believe the instruction on earrings (no matter how odd it may have seemed to me) came from God, through his servants.
Even if such instructions do depend, in some measure, on the leaders' own thinking, they are seers--able to see what I cannot see, and therefore able to comprehend that this instruction matters enough to give it in the name of the Lord.
Will: You said, "nobody really believes that God's servants are authoritatively equal to God."
I am dumbfounded by your ability to read the mind of every person in the world and come to this conclusion. It's an astonishing gift.
It's important to note that the 1st presidency did not claim that the earring and tattoo advice was a commandment from God. The exact word used was "discourages".
Thank you. Likewise on your ability to discern the process that Apostles and Prophets go through before issuing instructions.
Anyone who can read the Ensign or a press interview with President Hinckley already knows about the process I talked about, so alas, no need for such supernatural powers.
Itbutgaf.. the Lord telling me something and the First Presidency "advising" me something is NOT the same thing
hold your horses everybody!!! When were we told we could only wear one pair of earrings? What priesthood key was used to come up with that train of thought? What power of discernment was used to come up with that thought? What does my only having one set of holes in my ears have to do with my respect, my reverence, my service to the Lord, my membership?
Was this the same logic that came out with the saying men can only wear white shirts to hold the priesthood???
Ok now I really need a Snickers bar
"Itbutgaf.. the Lord telling me something and the First Presidency "advising" me something is NOT the same thing"
Then go ahead and disregard what they say. Ignore the Prophet's counsel and see what blessing you receive for doing so.
(Unless you're like Jeff and don't believe there can be such a thing as a blessing.)
"What does my only having one set of holes in my ears have to do with my respect, my reverence, my service to the Lord, my membership?"
It simply has to do with following the counsel of the President of the Church. If you think that has no relationship to your respect or reverence, then I'm sure I can't persuade you otherwise.
"Ignore the Prophet's counsel and see what blessing you receive for doing so."
What blessing do you think one would receive for following the counsel?
I follow the Lord's and my prophets counsel very seriously!! I follow all of the commandments, the law of tithing, the words of wisdom, I attend all my meetings to the best of my abilities... I do all the things I need to do that pertain to my salvation and to the following of Heavenly Father's plan.
I just don't get where the amount of earings that I wear has anything to do with my celestial glory. Where does it say I can only have one pair of earrings? Was this said in G.C.? Which one? What was the reasoning given? What blessing were we told we would receive if we followed this guide? What happens to all the women that already had more then one hole in each ear when this came out?
Are they now to be ostrasized never to be able to return to their Father in Heaven? Was the prophet talking about those who have 12 holes in each ear and an earing in their eyebrows and tongue and nose? Was he talking specifically about just having a 2nd hole put in each ear that holds just a small diamond stud ?
We are to look our best.. what if a woman thinks that is her best? Is that kind of like Eve choosing the lesser of the 2 "evils' when she had to choose one of the commandments to follow? She has to either go forth and mulitply or she has to nto touch the tree. She knows to go forth she has to partake of the fruit so she goes and does this.
What if a woman truly feels she is looking her best with an extra hole? I would really like to see scriptural reference to this or at least see the entire subject in full context. Someone I think my Father in Heaven is more concerned with my following all the big stuff then worrying about a 2nd hole in my ear.
And yes in a way you are right when you said something to the effect of the Prophet spoke so you should heed his counsel. But the Lord has also said to use our heads and make our choices.
If this is his counsel does that mean it will now be on our temple recommend interviews?
Lots of questions here about who said what when, who had authority to say it, and what blessings are promised. I think I'd better just offer you the words of the seers themselves:
Here's what President Hinckley said in the October 2000 General Conference Priesthood session about tattoos:
"Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body." (Gordon B. Hinckley, "Great Shall Be the Peace of thy Children," General Conference Oct 2000.)
Here's what President Hinckley said in the November 2000 General Conference Priesthood session about piercing:
"The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position 'on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings'—one pair"
Here's what President Hinckley said in a talk given to youth and young single adults on 12 November 2000 at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City and broadcast by satellite throughout the Church:
"I promise you that the time will come, if you have tattoos, that you will regret your actions. They cannot be washed off. They are permanent. Only by an expensive and painful process can they be removed. If you are tattooed, then probably for the remainder of your life you will carry it with you. I believe the time will come when it will be an embarrassment to you. Avoid it. We, as your Brethren who love you, plead with you not to become so disrespectful of the body which the Lord has given you." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Prophet’s Counsel and Prayer for Youth,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, p2.)
Here's what True to the Faith, a book of counsel and instructions from the First Presidency and the Twelve, says about tattooing:
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the tattooing of the body. Those who disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. The Apostle Paul taught of the significance of our bodies and the danger of purposefully defiling them: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17).
"If you have a tattoo, you wear a constant reminder of a mistake you have made. You might consider having it removed." )True to the Faith, p167.)
Here's what the same book of counsel and instructions says about piercing:
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings.
"Those who choose to disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. They will someday regret their decision." (True to the Faith, p27.)
Here's what an Apostle said in General Conference about following the Prophet's counsel on piercing:
"Have we studied his counsel and identified the things we need to avoid or to do differently? I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, 'If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.'
"Wearing two pair of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake." (M. Russell Ballard, "His Word Ye Shall Receive" General Conference Apr 2003.)
"I just don't get where the amount of earings that I wear has anything to do with my celestial glory."
Neither do I. That's why I was surprised when the Prophet gave this instruction. But he did give it. Now the choice is whether to follow his instructions or turn our backs on them.
"What blessing do you think one would receive for following the counsel?"
I don't know. Something greater than the blessing one receives for rejecting what the Prophet tells us to do.
"If this is his counsel does that mean it will now be on our temple recommend interviews?"
I don't know. My personal guess is that it won't be. But that opinion isn't any more important than yours. Could the Prophet add this to temple recommends? Yes, he could.
NO, because it's not a commandment
In the somewhat faint hope that this thread may return to its actual topic, I re-offer some of the thoughts I shared on a previous thread:
It's not too hard to think that the war in Iraq does have some effect on the outcomes that the Lord wants, in terms of helping his children achieve Eternal Life. Therefore, it makes sense that he would have a very great interest in it.
Is it then possible that he was deliberate in allowing George W. Bush to be chosen President? Of course it is possible, just as it was possible that he "suffered" the US Constitution to be established (see D&C 101:7). Is the opposite also possible? Yes.
Is it also possible that he deliberately CAUSED some things to bring about this result? Yes. Is the opposite also possible? Yes.
I don't presume to know whether the Lord did something to help George W. Bush become President or not. But it certainly isn't impossible.
Anonymous: You said, "NO, because it's not a commandment."
I don't know which question you are answering. Is it the one about temple recommends? If so, can you point to the "commandment" that says divorced men must pay their alimony and child support payments? That's in the temple recommend interview.
"Unless you're like Jeff and don't believe there can be such a thing as a blessing"
I believe all I said was I thought that the idea of a line taking longer as a consequence of God being unhappy with you seemed silly.
In fact, this is exactly what I said:
"It makes me laugh to think that someone would believe that there is a correlation between bad luck and how pleased or unpleased a supernatural being is with them."
I also said:
"When people constantly watch for 'good luck' and give credit to God for anything good that happens to them, they start to feel that good only comes as a direct result of God's intervention in their life."
So I wasn't saying that I don't believe there can be such a thing as a blessing, but that random chance enters into the equation too.
"I wasn't saying that I don't believe there can be such a thing as a blessing, but that random chance enters into the equation too."
Then why did you hold me in such contempt for saying that when God wants a person to repent, he may permit or cause bad things to happen to that person?
Your derisive words on that subject were, “It makes me laugh to think that someone would believe that there is a correlation between bad luck and how pleased or unpleased a supernatural being is with them.”
I replied with references from the Book of Mormon showing that sometimes there is such a correlation.
You said that the Book of Mormon was “not evidence of how things happen in real life.” I replied that you can believe that the Book of Mormon has no relationship to real life only if you believe the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
ltbutgaf thank you for letting me know where the counsel on the earrings came from. I certainly appreciate it.
ltbugaf, re: child support/alimony
"And all children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age" (D&C 83:4)
"But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Tim. 5:8)
Anonymous: Good. I agree with you that these scriptures support the necessity for paying child support and alimony. Now let's reason together.
Look closely at the scriptures you cited: The words "alimony" and "support payments" don't appear. These passages don't deal specifically and explicitly with them. More importantly, they say NOTHING about whether this support is a prerequisite for temple worthiness. The Prophet had to turn the principles of those scriptures into direct policy. There was also a time (quite a long time) when this issue was not part of a temple recommend interview. The Brethren had full authority to incorporate these matters into the temple recommend requirements, and they did so.
In the same way, the Prophet is turning principles into direct policies in asking us not to have tattoos, etc. One of the principles at work is that of respect for the temple of the body (as is obvious from the scriptures President Hinckley has quoted in talking about this). He took that principle and turned it into something specific. Specifically, he asks us not to get our bodies pierced more than once in the ears for women and not at all for men, and to avoid tattoos altogether. He also attached a promise, as you can read above, that we will regret going against this counsel.
Just as the Brethren had authority to add a question about alimony and child support to the temple recommend list, they also have authority to add a question about tattoos and piercings. If they do so, they will do it after seeking and receiving guidance from the Spirit.
Do I expect them to add a question like that? No. But that's just my opinion, and I may be wrong. You don't know any more than I do whether they will or won't add such a question.
The instructions about tattoos and piercings, and the promises attached to them, bring into play another extremely important principle that is embodied in the following scriptures:
"...and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people" D&C 1:14
"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." D&C 21:5
I'm sorry I derailed this thread with the tattoo issue. I think some unsupportable claims have been made, but disputing them would constitute a continued threadjack. If someone wants to start a thread about whether or not our leaders always pray and receive inspiration before issuing instructions, then perhaps Itbugaf and I can discuss our respective views.
Post a Comment