Does God Cause Natural Disasters?

[thesometimesaint]

As the first vision has, why did JS change over time? The BofM was more Non LDS Christian oriented than now after the changes were made. Was JS a fallen prophet? No one knows, but these changes are a problem for some.

We all tell slightly different versions of the same events depending on audience, what we think is relevent, or what we wish to highlight at the time. Moreover one of the keys in debunking any claim is route memorization.

The same arguments can be used against the OT prophets and the original Apostles including Paul(When he was known as Saul of Tarsus).

Edited November 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[RobertAC]

We all tell slightly different versions of the same events depending on audience, what we think is relevent, or what we wish to highlight at the time. Moreover one of the keys in debunking any claim is route memorization.

The same arguments can be used against the OT prophets and the original Apostles including Paul(When he was known as Saul of Tarsus).

Absolutely correct. Assuming the ancient religious texts are accurate, Jesus and Buddha both taught inconsistent stories depending upon their audiences. It's part of the teaching process. You don't necessarily tell someone with low self esteem a story that ends with a moral that one should watch for being too proud.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't see why religious history cannot be literal.

Because, in the case of the Bom, we have been specifically informed by the author that they will be avoiding topics if secular-temporal significance.

It's not that the history they present is not literal, it's just that what history they present is accidental and not the focus of the writing.

Would I look for the history of New York from the journal of a doctor who states he was going to keep a record of his ER room operations from a downtown hospital. We could, but it would require massive leaps of inference to draw complex historical understanding.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Absolutely correct. Assuming the ancient religious texts are accurate, Jesus and Buddha both taught inconsistent stories depending upon their audiences. It's part of the teaching process. You don't necessarily tell someone with low self esteem a story that ends with a moral that one should watch for being too proud.

But what

happens when we find the ancient religious texts are *not* accurate? Why assume they are? That makes us ignore anything that doesn't jive with the assumption that they are correct. In point of fact, even Joseph Smith never had that assumption..... I'm just sayin.....

[harfad]

Science is about establishing facts about the natural world(universe).

The dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago and died out about 65 million years ago.

No it wasn't an act of God. It was a natural event.

Then we obviously differ.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Totally agree with this. There is a Mormonstories podcast where Charles R. Harrell is interviewed about this book.

Harrell's book is revolutionary! I am astonished at how MUCH of the LDS doctrines of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and even Satan are just not scripturally supported, but appear more as speculation and personal interpretation. Of course, Grant Hardy's amazing book "Understanding the Book of Mormon" showed me crystal clear that all scripture is simply someone's interpretation....

And, Harrell's book shows far MORE environmental influence in Joseph's day than we have been told or thought. It is amazing..... It's a very important book to read.

[harfad]

Power and knowledge are rooted in, or at least co-operative, with faith. So He is omni-faithful (or Self-assured) too.

And so?

Faith, power and knowledge operate in a balance with each other.

Not sure what that means.

Which comes first?

Whichever does, it obviously cannot be affecting his knowledge, power, or faith (omniscience or omnipotence), so I cannot see the relevance of that to the discussion.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Like the rest of us, Joseph Smith's understanding of God changed and developed over time. That's painfully obvious and I don't see why it's a problem.

Because as a revelation, we are informed that it represents God's "objective" truth. If God doesn't tell the truth then who then can and does? HOW can the truth from God CHANGE? Why is it taught that once the leaders speak the thinking has been done because they speak with God's inspiration? If the nature of God changes with and through Joseph Smith's life and further through time, then what in the world was the original revelation good for? Just askin.

[harfad]

Charles R. Harrell, "This is My Doctrine, The Development of Mormon Theology" shows that Joseph Smith understood God in classical Christian terms for a VERY LONG time.......

The God that Joseph Smith believed in never changed to being anything other than omnipotent and omniscient. His God was always both.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

The God that Joseph Smith believed in never changed to being anything other than omnipotent and omniscient. His God was always both.

I'm willing to bet there are LDS apologists who fundamentally WILL disagree with this. Granted it is a common understanding, but evidence shows otherwise. Get ready.

[harfad]

But what happens when we find the ancient religious texts are *not* accurate? Why assume they are? That makes us ignore anything that doesn't jive with the assumption that they are correct. In point of fact, even Joseph Smith never had that assumption..... I'm just sayin.....

It appears that you do not distinguish between any old "ancient religious text" (including Greek mythology and Buddhist oral tradition), and canonised LDS scripture (e.g. the Bible). I do. I think that Bible historical texts are as accurate as they need be to facilitate correct religious understanding.

[harfad]

I'm willing to bet there are LDS apologists who fundamentally WILL disagree with this. Granted it is a common understanding, but evidence shows otherwise. Get ready.

OK, I am holding my breath now.

[Tacenda]

Harrell's book is revolutionary! I am astonished at how MUCH of the LDS doctrines of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and even Satan are just not scripturally supported, but appear more as speculation and personal interpretation. Of course, Grant Hardy's amazing book "Understanding the Book of Mormon" showed me crystal clear that all scripture is simply someone's interpretation....

And, Harrell's book shows far MORE environmental influence in Joseph's day than we have been told or thought. It is amazing..... It's a very important book to read.

Charles currently works at BYU, I guess that means he's active LDS.

[Bikeemikey]

It appears that you do not distinguish between any old "ancient religious text" (including Greek mythology and Buddhist oral tradition), and canonised LDS scripture (e.g. the Bible). I do. I think that Bible historical texts are as accurate as they need be to facilitate correct religious understanding.

Correct religious understanding may not produce correct historical information.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Correct religious understanding may not produce correct historical information.

Especially if it has been rewritten as much of the Old Testament has been from a far later age with the later age's thinking put back into the ancient times as if that were the original. Much like Joseph Smith doing so with his revelations then claiming what we Mormons today think is what all the ancients from Adam on thought in Ancient Israel. There is simply precious little to confirm that, and quite a bit to disconfirm that interpretation. But for we Mormons the magic word to make us simply fall into line without thinking about it at all is simply use the magic word "revelation" and we immediately believe. Our naivete is amazing to me these days.

[TAO]

Kerry, it doesn't have to be scripturally supported. The prophets have talked about such repetatively, and that is enough =).

And of course Joseph Smith's view's on God changed over time. Just as mine have as well. It is a good thing God keeps teaching me new things, as he did Joseph (though I am sure Joseph saw far more clearly than I did). Maybe I will be able to see that well someday, if I try with all my heart, indeed =).

Edited November 6, 2012 by TAO

[harfad]

Correct religious understanding may not produce correct historical information.

I believe Bible historical texts are as accurate as they need be to facilitate correct religious understanding.

[harfad]

Especially if it has been rewritten as much of the Old Testament has been from a far later age with the later age's thinking put back into the ancient times as if that were the original. Much like Joseph Smith doing so with his revelations then claiming what we Mormons today think is what all the ancients from Adam on thought in Ancient Israel. There is simply precious little to confirm that, and quite a bit to disconfirm that interpretation. But for we Mormons the magic word to make us simply fall into line without thinking about it at all is simply use the magic word "revelation" and we immediately believe. Our naivete is amazing to me these days.

I refer you again to my quotation of 2 Nephi 9:28-29 given in another post, which you may have overlooked:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

[Bikeemikey]

I believe Bible historical texts are as accurate as they need be to facilitate correct religious understanding.

Biblical texts are primarily religious not historical. There only objective is to facilitate religious understanding.

They don't need to have any historical accuracy to produce religious understanding. Jesus taught via made up stories about people who didn't exist... I got his message fine.

[Bikeemikey]

I refer you again to my quotation of 2 Nephi 9:28-29 given in another post, which you may have overlooked:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I really have no idea how your scripture quote relates to the post it was replying to. Would you be able to explain that for me.

[remnantofjoseph]

perhaps this scripture from helaman 12:3 has already been shared:

3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.

[Bikeemikey]

perhaps this scripture from helaman 12:3 has already been shared:

3 And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him.

All these things happen i life - the world will provide such wonderful growth experiences with out god pointing his finger and saying let there be hunger. If that's what caused hunger god must be spending all day pointing at Africa... No wonder my prayers aren't being answered :-) .

Edited November 6, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[harfad]

Biblical texts are primarily religious not historical. There only objective is to facilitate religious understanding.

Being religious does not prevent them from being historical. Moses did divide the Red Sea, talk with God at Sinai, use a miraculous rod etc. The books of Joshua, Judges, Kings and Chronicles are for the most part historical, written from a faith perspective. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc. are prophetic for the most part, but mingled with true history as well. Daniel is as much history as prophecy. There is no reason to deny or downplay the historical because of the prophetic or the doctrinal, or the wisdom or the poetic.

They don't need to have any historical accuracy to produce religious understanding. Jesus taught via made up stories about people who didn't exist... I got his message fine.

Parables are not histories, nobody says they are. But the stories about his life and miracles, teachings, preachings, trial, death, and resurrection are true histories. The book of Acts is true history combined with stories of miracles, teachings and preachings. The epistles of Paul describe events that really happened, as well as contain teachings, preachings, and exhortations.

[harfad]

I really have no idea how your scripture quote relates to the post it was replying to. Would you be able to explain that for me.

The person to whom they were addressed I believe understood them, and that is good enough for me.

[altersteve]

Because as a revelation, we are informed that it represents God's "objective" truth. If God doesn't tell the truth then who then can and does? HOW can the truth from God CHANGE? Why is it taught that once the leaders speak the thinking has been done because they speak with God's inspiration? If the nature of God changes with and through Joseph Smith's life and further through time, then what in the world was the original revelation good for? Just askin.

I never said the nature of God changes, or that truth from God changes. I said our understanding of the "original revelation" changes, just as our understanding of life, of ourselves, and of everything else changes and evolves as time goes by. It's part of being a human being, and in some way it's the very reason that we even exist. It's called "learning."

Edited November 6, 2012 by altersteve