Does God "Kill" People

[LDS Curious]

We have the power not to take our kids to the doctor, but we do not have the power to do the Good Thing (prevent the flu) without doing the Painful Thing (stick a needle in our kid's arm). That's perfectly fine, and I agree that a parent's perspective is different from a child's, and that people are right to engage in temporarily painful actions at that scale. But if there was a way to do the Good Thing without doing the Painful Thing (say, improvements in noninvasive technology), then we would be immoral if we chose to do the Painful Thing anyway.

And once we scale that argument up, it becomes ludicrous to say that God can still be moral if He has the power to stop Painful Things (millions of people killed in excruciating agony) and yet does nothing. It's not a case of a necessary flu shot, it's a case of that scene in Saw II where the girl is thrown into the pit of hypodermic needles by a psychopath trying to "teach her a lesson".

If God has the power to stop holocausts and doesn't use it, He is not a God I'll ever worship. If, on the other hand, God, who we believe to be "merely" an exalted man of flesh and bones, is limited in some ways and He simply cannot prevent every Painful Thing on every world, then He can still be good because He's using all the power He does have to do as much as He can to stop the Painful Things. If this view of God is correct, then, though He is not powerful enough to prevent all the deaths, perhaps as a Fisher of Men He can cast nets into the outer darkness to gather all the lost uncreated Intelligences back to Him in order to give them new bodies in a resurrection.

The problem is when we hold Gods to a different standard than any other Intelligence; I think they -- we -- are all just as subject to the law of justice. If your neighbor Joe Shmoe has the power to stop a holocaust and yet he deliberately chooses not to, we would agree that he's being immoral, right? So why is it different for God? We can't just handwave the problem away in order to confirm and preserve our preexisting belief in God's goodness by assuming that there must be mitigating circumstances floating around out there that provide a deeper context in the light of which God's actions could be correctly reframed as moral, because it is His goodness that is in question, and we can only judge an Intelligence's actions by what evidence we are capable of perceiving.

If a parent said "this is for your own good" while placing their children in a concentration camp, we would be absolutely correct to judge them to be insane or evil. And if God wants us to call Him Abba, then He doesn't get special privileges.

Thanks Jeremy! This idea of a "limited" but benevolent god just MIGHT allow me to believe in God again....it certainly seems to make sense of the facts as we know them.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

God does not "kill" anyone. He brings them back home to Him, and/or allows them to be brought back home to Him.

Living forever here would mean to never live with him again...as you noted God allows death, he does not "kill".

[canard78]

I appreciate everyone's comments on the reasons to feel less bereft at death. It's a comforting reminder of why it is needed. I'm not opposed to the reasons for death being needed and I'm comfortable with the notion that we all die as part of God's plan.

But by focusing on why we have to die in principle, you're also side-stepping the actual question of this thread.

I'm not asking why we die at all. I'm asking why we die at the precise moment each person dies.

Do each of us die by 'co-incidence' (natural events, the intervention of another human), at a time that is randomly decided by the rotations of life? Or are each of us protected until the moment that God decides we have had all the needed experiences?

I didn't agree with his answer, but Ahab did have a go at answering the question.

To reiterate: I'm not asking why we have to die. I'm asking whether God chooses (by allowing or making) the time of our passing.

[canard78]

To put it another way. Answer the following questions

1. A blind man stands at the edge of the cliff. You push him off. Who is responsible for his death?

2. A blind man walks, unknowingly, towards a cliff edge. He passes right by you and you choose to do nothing. He falls. Who is responsible for his death?

3. A blind man walks, unknowingly, towards a cliff edge. He passes right by you and you stop him. He lives. Who is responsible for his survival?

I know the LDS answer to why we die and why it's a 'good thing.' I'm interested in knowing your views (and doctrine if there is any) on why our mortal probation ends at the moment it does and what role God plays in making/allowing it to happen at that precise moment.

Are there moments in your life when you feel that God has done scenario 3? A road accident you walked away from? An unexplained recovery from illness? If we believe in a God of scenario 3, do we couple that with 1 or 2 or a bit of all 3?

If all 3, why some people at some moments and not others? Is this simply an unanswerable question that even the prophets have left alone?

[LDS Curious]

To put it another way. Answer the following questions

1. A blind man stands at the edge of the cliff. You push him off. Who is responsible for his death?

2. A blind man walks, unknowingly, towards a cliff edge. He passes right by you and you choose to do nothing. He falls. Who is responsible for his death?

3. A blind man walks, unknowingly, towards a cliff edge. He passes right by you and you stop him. He lives. Who is responsible for his survival?

1. YOU are responsible for his death. You pushed him.

2. YOU are responsible for his death. You did nothing.

3. YOU are responsible for his survival. You saved him.

I fail to see how God enters the picture at all in any of those scenarios.

[Mudcat]

Personally, I don't think God kills because I don't think Gods (who I believe to be finite people limited to a specific time and place) are in control of every particle in the universe. I have never really understood why that mindset is comforting for some; it seems to me that such a view is pure predestination, and a complete negation of free will.

Jeremy,

I don't think that God's foreknowledge is a negation of the free will of man. God's awareness of what a person would choose in any given circumstance doesn't mitigate them freely choosing what they would choose in any given circumstance. I am a compataiblist of sorts that way.

(Frankly, I think it's pretty typical that the people who claim that God causes hurricanes to teach some abstract ambiguous moral lesson have simply never been in one, or are not sufficiently thinking through the implications of their philosophical stance.) I'd rather trust a "weak" limited and finite God who is good than an omniscient and omnipresent essence that created the possibility of cancer ex nihilo and then predestines some people to experience it just to make a point.

I get what your saying, I just don't agree here. It plays on the notion that if God were omni this or that the world should be zoo, where everyone is well cared for.

You feel that a weak God that can't control the weather is better than a strong God that can and does control it even though it inflicts pain on humanity.

What I see as problematic, is that the LDS view seems to support the notion that God organized the world but given your view God has organized something beyond His control. It's certainly a possibility. Henry Ford built a car that could pull him rather than the other way round. I suppose there could be a deity that made all this and sort of grimaces every time a tsunami wipes out 80,000 people or so.. wondering what they could have done to make that situation better the next time.

But if something like this is case, where is the basis for trusting such a being. How could you reasonably expect such a being to be able to fulfill what they have declared will occur. You might rather believe in the unomni deity.. but I see no basis for trust in such a being. Why do you?

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited November 30, 2012 by Mudcat

[canard78]

canard:

We all die at some point. He won't remove the memory of our experiences. God restores that life, and dries all our tears. Where have we lost anything?

Where have I lost anything? A friend who I can call when I need to. A person who is a confidante and with whom I shared things that no other know. A mentor and trainer who has helped me reshape my character, enhance my strengths and manage my weaknesses. An positive influence on my family and children who could impact the rest of their life in a way he already has mine.

Or do none of these count? Am I just unlucky to be facing the prospect of losing him? Or did God choose this time?

Please, the last thing someone struggling with sickness or loss wants is to be patronised with the suggestion that some future promise of a hoped for afterlife should stop the pain of this very real one.

I know the comments are well intended, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply but I'm not asking you to stop it hurting and, when I read the accounts of others who grieve, many feel the same. A simple 'I'm very sorry to hear about your painful experience' is usually enough, I don't need it to be a teaching opportunity.

[canard78]

1. YOU are responsible for his death. You pushed him.

2. YOU are responsible for his death. You did nothing.

3. YOU are responsible for his survival. You saved him.

I fail to see how God enters the picture at all in any of those scenarios.

Thanks, I only meant it as a parable and symbol of my question about God's ability/willingness to protect us or not.

The second half of the post applied it to God. If God has the power to do 1,2 and 3, when and why does he intervene or not intervene?

Jeremy suggests that He (God) is not even at the cliff edge to intervene. Or, if he is, is powerless to stop us.

[LDS Curious]

Thanks, I only meant it as a parable and symbol of my question about God's ability/willingness to protect us or not.

The second half of the post applied it to God. If God has the power to do 1,2 and 3, when and why does he intervene or not intervene?

Jeremy suggests that He (God) is not even at the cliff edge to intervene. Or, if he is, is powerless to stop us.

I think I agree with Jeremy....in essence, if God is there in the first place, he doesn't intervene because he can't. It's a limited God theory, but to have an omnibenevolent deity is better than an omnipotent one, since if God CAN intervene and doesn't, he is evil for not doing so in situations like the holocaust.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't think that God's foreknowledge is a negation of the free will of man. God's awareness of what a person would choose in any given circumstance doesn't mitigate them freely choosing what they would choose in any given circumstance. I am a compataiblist of sorts that way.

If a God truly knows what a person will do before they do it, then that person is predestined. I really don't see a way around that. On the other hand, since God is never described as "omniscient" in the scriptures, I don't think we have to account for any foreknowledge greater than a Plan of intention in the first place. (I don't view Prophecy as the magical prediction of an unchanging future, I see it as the creation of the future based on shared faith and the binding power of mutual covenants made between people. As such, I think it's dependent on the free-willed participation of all the Intelligences involved, and is therefore subject to change if future events warrant modification of the original Plan. Eternal progression, neh?) I think God can be reasonably confident about what He thinks we'll do, and with all His eons of experience He's probably right quite often; I just think that God's like us in that no matter how long we've known a person, they can still surprise us.

I get what your saying, I just don't agree here. It plays on the notion that if God were omni this or that the world should be zoo, where everyone is well cared for.

Well, no. It's more like, if God created even the possibility for sin and pain from nothing, then He's quite literally the author of all evil. Even Augustine recognized that, in his own way. ("Who sowed this seed of bitterness in me, when all that I am was made by my God, who is Sweetness itself? [...] If [satan] was a good angel who became a devil because of his own wicked will, how did he come to possess the wicked will which made him a devil, when the Creator, who is entirely good, made him a good angel and nothing else?")

You feel that a weak God that can't control the weather is better than a strong God that can and does control it even though it inflicts pain on humanity.

Yep.

What I see as problematic, is that the LDS view seems to support the notion that God organized the world but given your view God has organized something beyond His control. It's certainly a possibility. Henry Ford built a car that could pull him rather than the other way round. I suppose there could be a deity that made all this and sort of grimaces every time a tsunami wipes out 80,000 people or so.. wondering what they could have done to make that situation better the next time.

Seeing that the word 'orthodox' does not appear in scripture, I'm actually not terribly concerned with trying to preserve a static "LDS view". (I like something Hugh B. Brown said: "More thinking is required, and we should all exercise our God-given right to think and be unafraid to express our opinions, with proper respect for those to whom we talk and proper acknowledgment of our own shortcomings. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the Church and resist all efforts to suppress it. [...] The Church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. One may memorize much without learning anything. In this age of speed there seems to be little time for meditation.") So I'm sure there are plenty of LDS folk who would disagree with me despite all of our views being grouped under the 'LDS' banner. I certainly don't speak for the Church; these are just my own speculations.

For one thing, I'm rather more conservative than many in regards to what it is that the Gods organized. What I think was organized is a spiritual economy, a conceptual house-order (a Temple, ie, a "template"?) for the Intelligences that were sent into bodies on this world; we organize our perceptual worlds through language (see mfbukowski's enjoyable rants) -- I don't think the Gods physically organized or have control over every particle that has ever existed. The universe is too big, there's too much, there are too many worlds to have it all under the conscious control of a few tiny beings. The Gods are exalted men and women, with flesh and bone, capable of eating fish and honeycomb that their friends offer them; for one thing, I think God Himself could not create Himself, and therefore there has to be some sort of inherent self-organizing creative process within the universe independent of Gods, regardless of which sphere they happen to have evolved on. (Cue Dawkins.)

It's not exactly a perfect fit, and there are still conceptual problems to work out, but Brigham Young said something a little similar: "There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced. They are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized they experience the good and the evil, the light and the dark, the bitter and the sweet as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be."

In other words, I think Intelligences and the worlds they are birthed into are an intrinsic, uncreated part of the natural world; the "organization of the world" is, I think, the -- social -- organization of Intelligences by a wiser fellow Intelligence who helps to teach us to serve each other. Yes, I think there are things that are beyond God's control (notably such things as us humans); there is genuine risk and wildness and dark untamed chaos, but God is good because He lights lamps and plants orderly gardens in the midst of it all.

We humans -- Gods in embryo -- can manipulate the weather already, to a small degree; we can alter our environment (my brother's an architect with an emphasis on environmental designs); we can breed populations by harnessing the preexisting natural process of evolution for our own ends; we can organize ourselves into civilizations that normalize pro-social mores.

That doesn't mean we can stop all bad things from happening; pain is just a part of existence -- God Himself weeps in the Book of Moses. If He was all-powerful and every omni one could apply to someone, then He could make an existence where there is no such thing as pain and yet any post-hoc "lessons" we currently see in such cruel phenomena would still be learned. In my opinion, only the view that God is our fellow, who found Himself in the midst of other Intelligences and simply does not have the power to stop all suffering exonerates Him from all the (unsuccessful) traditional Christian attempts at theodicy.

But if something like this is case, where is the basis for trusting such a being. How could you reasonably expect such a being to be able to fulfill what they have declared will occur. You might rather believe in the unomni deity.. but I see no basis for trust in such a being. Why do you?

These are the kind of questions that traditional Christians almost always ask, and I've simply never understood why they're even an issue. Even many LDS (despite what I think are the rather obvious implications of the King Follett Discourse) fall into the trap of assuming God has been perfect and infallible and omniscient and all-powerful for all eternity, with no period of growth and learning and evolution on His part. I confess I find the questions to be rather annoying; I don't trust my parents because they created protozoa from nothing and are never wrong and are completely perfect and have been for all eternity. I don't understand the need for -- and actually find fairly distasteful, to be honest -- the idealizing perfectionism inherent to the question's premises.

Flawless infallible omni-laden perfection is not a prerequisite for trust. Faith in someone's intentions and character is enough for me. A supposedly omniscient, omnipresent God can claim such attributes and claim that He has the power to raise my family from the dead, but until He actually demonstrates it right in front of me, I'm afraid I'm still an unapologetic doubting Thomas. But I don't think that's a sin. (In which case, my basis for trusting such a Being can hardly rest on whether or not I see Him as limited in some ways; I think the power of resurrection is quite strong enough!)

Faith is things hoped for but not seen, right? I don't know if there are any Gods out there; I haven't seen any with my own eyes (except the potential Gods all around us, when I see good, heroic humans like doctors who would stop death if they had the power); I hope Christ was (and still is) a real God, I hope I'm interpreting the scriptures correctly that I understand to promise a literal resurrection. If God can't pull our Intelligences from the darkness, then we're all basically screwed anyway.

Edited November 30, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[The Nehor]

Not only does he kill people but he could have prevented every death that ever happened.

Anyone who wants to live forever in this world in this environment is insane. I agree with the eastern religions. Reincarnation jwould be a cycle to get out of.

[Duncan]

Not only does he kill people but he could have prevented every death that ever happened.

Anyone who wants to live forever in this world in this environment is insane. I agree with the eastern religions. Reincarnation jwould be a cycle to get out of.

have a guy in our ward who got baptized a few years ago, believes nothing at all what the Church teaches, is rude and kinda racist, no tact, anyways believes in reincarnation and i'm taking this idea! because it's true what they say, why reinvent the wheel? steal, steal, steal!

[pogi]

Anybody ever read 3 Nephi 8 and 9?

"the inhabitants thereof I have buried up in the sea...", "I have burned with fire", "I covered with the earth, and the inhabitants thereof" etc. etc. etc.

Not only does he have power to destroy life, he also has power to save it.

9:13 - "O all ye that were spared..."

If he has power to raise someone from the dead, who could deny that he could not spare a life also.

To think that God has no power over the elements to destroy or save lives is ridiculous. 3 Nephi shows that he used the elements to destroy life. In the new testament, Christ calmed the tempest of the sea to save life.

How is this not clear? What is evil about death? It is simply a step into life. Their death is not a final judgment.

Edited November 30, 2012 by pogi

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for the kind words earlier, canard78 and LDS Curious.

My opinion on the questions canard78 posed earlier:

I think death is a result of a natural causal chain that is not predetermined by God, and is "random" or "coincidental" in that sense. If God is the "you" in the three questions asked, then I think He's responsible for the man's death in 1 and 2, and is responsible for his survival in 3. But no, I don't think God Himself is actually at the cliff in the first place.

(I don't believe the Old Testament scriptures where God drowns every living creature on the face of the earth or tells people to murder helpless women and children; I don't believe the Spirit of Wisdom told Nephi to cut off a drunk's head; and I don't believe Jesus killed people just to announce His coming in the New World. If that's the best a supposedly "good" God can do, then I want no part in His worthship. If there are mistakes in the scriptures, they are the self-justifications and rationalizations of expressly fallible men, possibly transmitted through the hands of corrupt and designing translators who introduced many errors. Yeah, yeah, I'm a cafeteria Mormon, but so's everyone.)

Ben P had some interesting quotes over at the Juvenile Instructor that I think might be relevant:

[Joseph] Smith taught that gaining a body was a key component of mortality. He claimed that “before the foundation of the Earth in the Grand Counsel that the Spirits of all men ware [sic] subject to oppression & the express purpose of God in Giving [them] a tabernacle [sic] was to arm [them] against the power of Darkness.”

Two months later, he similarly explained that “God saw that those intelegences had Not power to Defend themselves against those that had a tabernicle therefore the Lord Calls them togather in Counsel & agrees to form them tabernicles so that he might [en]Gender the Spirit & the tabernicle together so as to create sympathy for their fellowman.”

Indeed, beyond just being a positive result of earthly existence, Smith believed that attaining a body was its primary objective -- that “no …person can have this Salvation except through a tabernacle.” He summed up this thought in a discourse devoted to the subject in 1843:

"The design of God before the foundation of the world was that we should take tabernacles that through faithfulness we should overcome & thereby obtain a resrection from the dead, in this wise obtain glory honor power and dominion for this thing is needful, inasmuch as the Spirits in the Eternal world, glory in bringing other Spirits in Subjection unto them, Striving continually for the mastery, He who rules in the heavens when he has a certain work to do calls the Spirits before him to organize them. They present themselves and offer their Services."

Indeed, Joseph Smith’s theology defined corporality as a position of power rather than a trait of existence, and was a tool to position them over the devil and he legions. “All men have power to resist the devil,” he explained in 1841, because “they who have tabernacles have power over those who have not.” “The greatness of [the devil’s] punishment,” he taught two years later, “is that he shall not have a tabernacle[.] this is his punishment.”

Now, I myself don't actually believe in a single ha-satan, just various Accusers among us who take on that archetypal role from time to time (meaning the Devil is the dark potential in ourselves -- yikes). But to get into some wacky metaphysical speculative territory, I think there really might be something to the "Fisher of Men" thing. When we're bound within our mortal bodies, our Intelligence, the core part of us, is empowered, and we cannot be extricated except through force (ie, dyin'). In which case, I don't think God plans or in any way causes the precise moment of anyone's death. He comes to save men, not destroy them! Supposedly He can transform us in a twinkling so quickly that we don't even taste death, in which case, He would be immoral if He is individually picking out every car crash where someone gets splattered on the asphalt.

(Go watch, say, the video of the Sinoloa drug-cartel members decapitated via chainsaw if you're sincerely wondering "what is evil about death", or are under the misapprehension that it is "simply" a step into life. Death is the most evil thing there is; if any God is good, it's because they're doing all that's in their power to stop death.)

I'm very much a "do not go gentle into that good night; rage, rage against the dying of the light," kind of guy; I figure God wants us empowered in our physical tabernacles as long as we can possibly hold out. What I'm hoping is that He's got some sort of metaphysical safety net spread throughout the worlds He's in charge of, and periodically draws our Intelligences back to wherever they need to go to be breathed into bodies again. So God Himself might be in one place, but His influence can still reach across to gather us up when we are reduced to the Intelligence which is made of fine matter which can only be seen by purer eyes. Crazy stuff, but there are more things in Heaven and earth, etc..

Edited November 30, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Bernard Gui]

And I heard as it were the noise of thunder

One of the four beasts saying, "Come and see",

And I saw and behold a white horse

There's a man going around taking names

And he decides who to free and who to blame

Everybody won't be treated all the same

There will be a golden ladder reaching down

When the man comes around

The hairs on your arm will stand up

At the terror in each sip and in each sup

Will you partake of that last offered cup

Or disappear into the potter's ground?

When the man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers

One hundred million angels singing

Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum

Voices calling, voices crying

Some are born and some are dying

It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn trees

The virgins are all trimming their wicks

The whirlwind is in the thorn trees

It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

Till Armageddon, no shalam, no shalom

Then the father hen will call his chicken's home

The wise man will bow down before the throne

And at his feet they will cast their golden crowns

When the man comes around

Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still

Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still

Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still

Listen to the words long written down

When the man comes around

Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers

One hundred million angels singing

Multitudes are marching to the big kettledrum

Voices calling, voices crying

Some are born and some are dying

It's Alpha and Omega's kingdom come

And the whirlwind is in the thorn trees

The virgins are all trimming their wicks

The whirlwind is in the thorn trees

It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks

In measured hundred weight and penny pound

When the man comes around

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts

And I looked and behold, a pale horse

And his name that sat on it was Death

And Hell followed with him

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*sorely tempted to post Marilyn Manson's version of 'Personal Jesus'*

[canard78]

Anybody ever read 3 Nephi 8 and 9?

"the inhabitants thereof I have buried up in the sea...", "I have burned with fire", "I covered with the earth, and the inhabitants thereof" etc. etc. etc.

Not only does he have power to destroy life, he also has power to save it.

9:13 - "O all ye that were spared..."

If he has power to raise someone from the dead, who could deny that he could not spare a life also.

To think that God has no power over the elements to destroy or save lives is ridiculous. 3 Nephi shows that he used the elements to destroy life. In the new testament, Christ calmed the tempest of the sea to save life.

How is this not clear? What is evil about death? It is simply a step into life. Their death is not a final judgment.

Thank you for answering the first part of the question. So would you say (and I apologise for repeating the second question ad infinitum), while God can and does take and save life, does he do it for all people? Is every single death at a moment (and manner?) of his chosing. Or does he intervene in some but not in others. If God is no respecter of persons, why would he protect some to ensure they complete whatever mission they have while allowing the time of another to but deprived opportunities that life would have offered them.

Either he's an interventionist or an observer. Or a mixture in unequal measures?

[canard78]

Not only does he kill people but he could have prevented every death that ever happened.

Anyone who wants to live forever in this world in this environment is insane. I agree with the eastern religions. Reincarnation jwould be a cycle to get out of.

Thanks for the direct answer. Can I ask a follow-up? I don't want to live forever either. But I'm trying to understand what role God plays in the precise moment of our passing from this to the next.

Are you saying that his non-interventionary policy (even though he has the ability) extends to all people and all times or is their basic inequality? Does he save and protect some until they have fully completed their mortal mission and stand asside and let others die at whatever moment nature/the world happens to take them?

People say "it all happens for a reason" etc. Is the reason sometimes 'coincidence?'

(Apologies for the repetitive nature of my questions, I just feel some are answering some of the question without tackling the 'thorny' implications of their answer).

[mathonihah]

Thank you for answering the first part of the question. So would you say (and I apologise for repeating the second question ad infinitum), while God can and does take and save life, does he do it for all people? Is every single death at a moment (and manner?) of his chosing.

I believe the answer to that question is yes; or putting it another way, nobody's death comes as a surprise to God. See D&C 42:48. Men die at the times appointed to them by God. Heck, even sparrows don't die without his knowledge (Matthew 10:29), so how could men, whom he has created in his own image?

Or does he intervene in some but not in others.

Not sure what you mean by "intervene". In a sense God intervenes in every case, since he appoints the time when all die. But if you mean an extraordinary event like like a miraculous healing for example, miracles are function of faith. But even then, the miraculous healing takes place if they are not "appointed unto death," as in D&C 42:48.

If God is no respecter of persons, why would he protect some to ensure they complete whatever mission they have while allowing the time of another to but deprived opportunities that life would have offered them.

Either he's an interventionist or an observer. Or a mixture in unequal measures?

You are now trying to sit in judgement on the righteousness of God's actions. Do you think you are qualified to do that? Do you think you have enough wisdom, knowledge, information to be able to do that? The chastening words of the Lord to Job seems appropriate here: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2)

[canard78]

I believe the answer to that question is yes; or putting it another way, nobody's death comes as a surprise to God. See D&C 42:48. Men die at the times appointed to them by God. Heck, even sparrows don't die without his knowledge (Matthew 10:29), so how could men, whom he has created in his own image?

Not sure what you mean by "intervene". In a sense God intervenes in every case, since he appoints the time when all die. But if you mean an extraordinary event like like a miraculous healing for example, miracles are function of faith. But even then, the miraculous healing takes place if they are not "appointed unto death," as in D&C 42:48.

You are now trying to sit in judgement on the righteousness of God's actions. Do you think you are qualified to do that? Do you think you have enough wisdom, knowledge, information to be able to do that? The chastening words of the Lord to Job seems appropriate here: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2)

Thanks for a direct answer to the question, I appreciate it.

I'm not in any way trying to sit in judgement of God. I'm trying to understand whether he treats all of his children equally, which I'm inclined to think he does.

So, if we die at a time appointed by God and at a time (manner?) of his choosing, how does that factor in agency?

If I put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger and you weren't "appointed unto death" would my gun miraculously jam?

At the recent Batman cinema killings, the killer is understood to have shot randomly into the audience. 12 died, 58 were injured. Were those 12 deaths not actually random? Did the bullet targetting the 58 miraculous move in the air to hit a non-vital organ because it wasn't their appointed time? And if it was the appointed time for the 12 who passed, how did God ensure they died at the time appointed by him? If your answer is "I don't know" that's absolutely fine. I don't either, but I'm trying to understand the implications of each scenario.

I'm not judging God, I'm trying to understand our relationship to him and the nature of our 'turn on earth.'

Edited November 30, 2012 by canard78

[mathonihah]

Thanks for a direct answer to the question, I appreciate it.

I'm not in any way trying to sit in judgement of God. I'm trying to understand whether he treats all of his children equally, which I'm inclined to think he does.

So, if we die at a time appointed by God and at a time (manner?) of his choosing, how does that factor in agency?

Not sure how to answer that. Agency was never intended to prevent people from dying, when the appointed time comes for them to die.

If I put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger and you weren't "appointed unto death" would my gun miraculously jam?

If God didn't want you do die under those circumstances, there are a million and one ways in which he could prevent it from happening. The real question you are asking is, Could God prevent someone from dying under those circumstances (by any means he chooses to); and if he could, would he do so if that was his will? The answer to both of those questions is Yes.

At the recent Batman cinema killings, the killer is understood to have shot randomly into the audience. 12 died, 58 were injured. Were those 12 deaths not actually random? Did the bullet targetting the 58 miraculous move in the air to hit a non-vital organ because it wasn't their appointed time? And if it was the appointed time for the 12 who passed, how did God ensure they died at the time appointed by him? If your answer is "I don't know" that's absolutely fine. I don't either, but I'm trying to understand the implications of each scenario.

Nobody can read God's mind, including me. What I am convinced is that nobody died in that incident whom God did not want to die, nobody was injured whom God did not want to be injured, and nobody escaped death or injury whom God did not want to escape. But the responsibility for their deaths and injuries will rest on the head of him who committed the crime, and he will receive the appropriate punishment for it.

[Vance]

Does God "Kill" People?

Yes! He kills ark steadiers.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Vance

[changed]

As in Adam all die... so I guess Adam is to blame.

At a very sad funeral I went to (for a little 2 year old) our bishop shared this:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 122:9)

Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.

Our days are numbered, we are each placed in the world for as long as we need - we can't say someone should not have died, or their life was too short, because we are each given what we need.

Jeremy,

I don't think that God's foreknowledge is a negation of the free will of man.

I agree - Determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Free will concerns "who" determines an action - free will is deterministic. I can have foreknowledge of what will be on TV tonight, but I did not take away anyone's agency to gain that knowledge.

Edited November 30, 2012 by changed

[pogi]

Thank you for answering the first part of the question. So would you say (and I apologise for repeating the second question ad infinitum), while God can and does take and save life, does he do it for all people? Is every single death at a moment (and manner?) of his chosing. Or does he intervene in some but not in others. If God is no respecter of persons, why would he protect some to ensure they complete whatever mission they have while allowing the time of another to but deprived opportunities that life would have offered them.

Either he's an interventionist or an observer. Or a mixture in unequal measures?

You are looking at death as "deprived opportunities", I don't look at it that way, it is a path of new opportunities. While God is no respecter of persons, some are fore-ordained for specific purposes on this earth. Some happened to be alive during a fulfilled prophecy of destruction (3 Nephi). Some are saved by their own faith, others suffer and die needlessly out of lack of faith. Some are called to serve on the other side. God does not place such titles as interventionist or observe on Himself, I don't know why we need to. If I was forced to, I would think that it is a mixture of the two. I can see examples of both in scripture. Some might consider it cruel to simply "observe" suffering and death. I have no doubt that God suffers with us in compassion. Did God intervene with Christ? No, he observed him suffer and die. Does that make Him cruel and evil? No, that makes him good. God is always good, that's all that I really need to know.

[canard78]

Not sure how to answer that. Agency was never intended to prevent people from dying, when the appointed time comes for them to die.

If God didn't want you do die under those circumstances, there are a million and one ways in which he could prevent it from happening. The real question you are asking is, Could God prevent someone from dying under those circumstances (by any means he chooses to); and if he could, would he do so if that was his will? The answer to both of those questions is Yes.

Nobody can read God's mind, including me. What I am convinced is that nobody died in that incident whom God did not want to die, nobody was injured whom God did not want to be injured, and nobody escaped death or injury whom God did not want to escape. But the responsibility for their deaths and injuries will rest on the head of him who committed the crime, and he will receive the appropriate punishment for it.

Again, thank you for such a clear and direct answer to the question. I'm not sure it's one I can get my head around at the moment, but it's something to think about.