Fiji Temple Cyclone: Would you send it into the temple, the main city... or just snuff it out

[canard78]

Quote

He does not prevent all disasters, but he does answer our prayers as he did with the uniquely powerful cyclone that threatened to prevent the dedication of the Temple in Fiji. Or he does blunt their effects, as he did with the terrorist bombing that took so many lives in the Brussels airport, but only injured our missionaries.

So said Elder Oaks this week in conference.

I'm curious to know how believers feel about this? If, as Elder Oaks seems to suggest, God chose to protect the Fiji temple, was it justified, given the impact it had on others. 

Deseret news reported:

Quote

The powerful category 5 storm left dozens of people dead, knocked out power and destroyed entire villages as it made landfall along the north coast of Fiji's largest, most populous island, Viti Levu. Suva escaped the brunt of the storm, which shifted direction in the hours before it hit the Pacific island

Elder Adolf J. Johansson, an Area Seventy, said he “felt a peaceful calm, a spiritual feeling that everyone would work out OK and that the sun would shine” on the temple the day of the rededication... President Eyring also said he felt at peace with the decision to hold the church events in the hours before and after the storm.

The cyclone path crossed over the north of the island, destroying the homes of families and killing people in its wake. The message from the leaders suggests they believe Suva & the temple was protected from the impact of the storm. If that's the case, and divine influence pushed the storm to the north side, away from the south side of the island (where Suva is located), how do you feel?

Did God make the right call. If you had divine power over the elements would you:

1. Nudge it north to provide a faith promoting experience to Mormons. Nevermind the deaths and destruction of homes in the north...
2. Allow it to go south. The temple dedication can always happen another day and it's only bricks and mortar, the church can afford the repairs
3. Send it much further north or south all together. After all the preparation and work, let the dedication celebrations go ahead unhindered and not sacrifice the people on the north of the island while we're at it

How is #3 not the only reasonable course of action. If Mormon leaders and members believe in a God that intervenes to protect the temple, why only protect the south part of the Fiji island. Why not go just a little further and push the whole cyclone out over the sea.

[Duncan]

Just so this figures into the conversation the Samoa Apia Temple was burned and had to be re-dedicated. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Duncan

[canard78]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Just so this figures into the conversation the Samoa Apia Temple was burned and had to be red-dedicated. 

For some reason the Fiji temple was worth protecting but the Samoa not. Odd one.

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, canard78 said:

So said Elder Oaks this week in conference.

I'm curious to know how believers feel about this? If, as Elder Oaks seems to suggest, God chose to protect the Fiji temple, was it justified, given the impact it had on others. 

Deseret news reported:

The cyclone path crossed over the north of the island, destroying the homes of families and killing people in its wake. The message from the leaders suggests they believe Suva & the temple was protected from the impact of the storm. If that's the case, and divine influence pushed the storm to the north side, away from the south side of the island (where Suva is located), how do you feel?

Did God make the right call. If you had divine power over the elements would you:

1. Nudge it north to provide a faith promoting experience to Mormons. Nevermind the deaths and destruction of homes in the north...
2. Allow it to go south. The temple dedication can always happen another day and it's only bricks and mortar, the church can afford the repairs
3. Send it much further north or south all together. After all the preparation and work, let the dedication celebrations go ahead unhindered and not sacrifice the people on the north of the island while we're at it

How is #3 not the only reasonable course of action. If Mormon leaders and members believe in a God that intervenes to protect the temple, why only protect the south part of the Fiji island. Why not go just a little further and push the whole cyclone out over the sea.

Given that God, being God, has control over the elements, at all times, then surely not allowing any bad weather at all must be "the only reasonable course of action," right?

In fact, why doesn't God simply prevent any bad thing from happening to anyone, anywhere, at any time?

How unreasonable of Him, to expect us to live in a fallen world where accidents and natural disasters are regular occurrences!

 

[canard78]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Given that God, being God, has control over the elements, at all times, then surely not allowing any bad weather at all must be "the only reasonable course of action," right?

In fact, why doesn't God simply prevent any bad thing from happening to anyone, anywhere, at any time?

How unreasonable of Him, to expect us to live in a fallen world where accidents and natural disasters are regular occurrences!

All very good questions Russell. If Elder Oaks is correct, then apparently lots of natural disasters are just that: natural. If God rarely intervenes then most of them just take their natural course and knock down whatever religious building might be in the way. 

In the Fiji case however, Elder Oaks classes it as a moment where intervention did indeed happen. 

The cyclone (if you check the map) turns East while out at sea and heads in the direction of Fiji. 

If Elder Oaks is correct that this is a specific instance of divine intervention on the elements (as opposed to the more frequent tendency for it to be left to random conditions), are you comfortable with the level of intervention? Do you celebrate the fact that the God you believe in was willing to intervene on this occasion to push the storm a smidgen North... but not North enough to stop the deaths and residential destruction that happened instead of damage to the Temple. 

I'm sure the sunny skies sent to the Southern temple was a huge consolation to the people who had just lost their homes or even lives in the north. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

I spent the evening last night teaching alongside my current favourite Elder in our ward, from the north of Fiji. In our lesson, he actually spoke about the complete destruction of his home village (the people who survived have all been moved elsewhere) and the deaths of several family members. He's a convert of only three years, but it would appear that he has a better appreciation of the nature and essential purposes of mortality in God's plan than many who find themselves worrying about the poor Fijians. I love him with all my heart, and I'm grateful for the good family who sent him to us.

[canard78]

11 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Given that God, being God, has control over the elements, at all times, then surely not allowing any bad weather at all must be "the only reasonable course of action," right?

In fact, why doesn't God simply prevent any bad thing from happening to anyone, anywhere, at any time?

How unreasonable of Him, to expect us to live in a fallen world where accidents and natural disasters are regular occurrences!

And to clarify, I agree with the implications of your last paragraph. We live in a "fallen" (or I'd say random) world with regular natural disasters. When people survive them and then attribute their survival to God's protection I find it an odd contradiction of the default religious defence of natural disasters when they say, as you have, that disasters are natural and God shouldn't be blamed. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I'm sure the sunny skies sent to the Southern temple was a huge consolation to the people who had just lost their homes or even lives in the north. 

I understand that you meant this sarcastically, but our good Elder from Fiji has repeated almost exactly those words from his parents. Real faith is certainly a mystery to those who lack it.

[canard78]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I spent the evening last night teaching alongside my current favourite Elder in our ward, from the north of Fiji. In our lesson, he actually spoke about the complete destruction of his home village (the people who survived have all been moved elsewhere) and the deaths of several family members. He's a convert of only three years, but it would appear that he has a better appreciation of the nature and essential purposes of mortality in God's plan than many who find themselves worrying about the poor Fijians. I love him with all my heart, and I'm grateful for the good family who sent him to us.

And does he celebrate, like Elder Oaks has, God's supposed decision to protect the temple in the south (and even send it "sunny skies") while only pushing it far enough North to hit his home town and kill relatives. 

[canard78]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I understand that you meant this sarcastically, but our good Elder from Fiji has repeated almost exactly those words from his parents. Real faith is certainly a mystery to those who lack it.

Faith is indeed blind sometimes. 

Or even illogical. 

Have you actually thought this through? How is God the "good guy" in this tragedy? How is sunshine over the temple dedication consolation for death and homelessness? God did that to his home town, if Elder Oaks is to be believed. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Knowing God personally, he 'celebrates' everything that that knowledge brings him. No doubt you would find him 'foolish'.

We have another appointment together tonight. Do you wish me to let him know of your hand-wringing over this and seek a more immediate response from someone for whom this is not an intellectual exercise or an act of virtue-signalling?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[ERMD]

"Indeed, when we are unduly impatient with an omniscient God’s timing, we really are suggesting that we know what is best. Strange, isn’t it—we who wear wristwatches seek to counsel Him who oversees cosmic clocks and calendars."

--Neal A. Maxwell

[canard78]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Knowing God personally, he 'celebrates' everything that that knowledge brings him. No doubt you would find him 'foolish'.

You introduced that word, not me. I didn't call him foolish. If his faith consoles him, I celebrate the consation in the midst of tragedy. Genuinely. I have known enough people who have survived the pain of loss and tragedy by depending on their faith and I'm grateful they have that. 

I can remember a time when my faith would have put me on your side of the argument. 

Given the missionary's not present to talk for himself, I'm interested in how you react to it. If, as you and Elder Oaks appear to believe, God chose to intervene on this occasion why do you suppose he was so limited in his intervention? Just a few miles more would not have been much effort for the "big" God you've previously described. 

And why is it better to kill and dishome people rather than disrupt a temple dedication?

[PeterPear]

Just blame it on the Coriolis Effect

 

[juliann]

This thread might not be so horridly tasteless if there was a minimal attempt at caring about the victims as people rather than a handy tool to slap some church leader.

Edited April 8, 2016 by juliann

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

This thread might not be so horridly tasteless if there was a minimal attempt at caring about the victims as people rather than a handy tool to slap some church leader.

One person dying is a tragedy. A thousand dying is a critic's brickbat statistic.

[JLHPROF]

Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

God is in control.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

God is aware of every death.

Good enough for me.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

For some reason the Fiji temple was worth protecting but the Samoa not. Odd one.

Design issues probably.

[flameburns623]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

So said Elder Oaks this week in conference.

I'm curious to know how believers feel about this? If, as Elder Oaks seems to suggest, God chose to protect the Fiji temple, was it justified, given the impact it had on others. 

Deseret news reported:

The cyclone path crossed over the north of the island, destroying the homes of families and killing people in its wake. The message from the leaders suggests they believe Suva & the temple was protected from the impact of the storm. If that's the case, and divine influence pushed the storm to the north side, away from the south side of the island (where Suva is located), how do you feel?

Did God make the right call. If you had divine power over the elements would you:

1. Nudge it north to provide a faith promoting experience to Mormons. Nevermind the deaths and destruction of homes in the north...
2. Allow it to go south. The temple dedication can always happen another day and it's only bricks and mortar, the church can afford the repairs
3. Send it much further north or south all together. After all the preparation and work, let the dedication celebrations go ahead unhindered and not sacrifice the people on the north of the island while we're at it

How is #3 not the only reasonable course of action. If Mormon leaders and members believe in a God that intervenes to protect the temple, why only protect the south part of the Fiji island. Why not go just a little further and push the whole cyclone out over the sea.

Another reminder from Richard Bach's Illusions:

A cloud does not know why it moves in just such a direction and at such a speed, it feels an impulsion....this is the place to go now. 
But the sky knows the reason and the patterns behind all clouds, and you will know, too, when you lift yourself high enough to see beyond horizons. 

The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly.

I am amazed at the number of purported Mormons who raise these kinds of questions: losing sight of the fact that this life is, by LDS theology, just a fractional part of the totality of our existence.

We live here, having chosen in the pre-existence to come to a certain time and a certain place, in order to achieve certain, specific goals.

We achieve those things by God's grace, and move on to another plane of existence.

Look, the suffering is real in this life: I'm grieving to pieces as I watch my Mom slip away.

But I am also able to put trust in the Absolute to a degree that allows me to suffer and to grieve when bad things happen even as I rejoice that good things happened elsewhere. 

I wish I could find a quote from Bach's analogy of life to a movie. I will have to paraphrase from memory.

At one point, one of the charactets asks,

"So: it's all make-believe? That's not real blood?"

The other answers, "No: it's real blood, all right. But it had just as well be fake, for all the effect it has on your true existence".

Some here need to pick up their copy of the Messiah's Handbook and remind themselves what our real existence, our true purpose, really is.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, canard78 said:

You introduced that word, not me. I didn't call him foolish.

My apologies; I didn't mean to imply that you had. I had Paul -- and specifically 1 Corinthians 2:14 -- in mind when I typed those inverted commas.

Quote

Given the missionary's not present to talk for himself, I'm interested in how you react to it. If, as you and Elder Oaks appear to believe, God chose to intervene on this occasion why do you suppose he was so limited in his intervention?

After we finished our lesson this evening, I asked Elder T------- if I could ask him a very personal and possibly sensitive question about Fiji that was currently being bandied about on the internet right now. He said sure. (I was confident he'd be OK with it -- I was with him right after he'd received news of the cyclone from his parents, and so I knew how he'd reacted then -- but it's better to check.)

So I asked him what you've asked me. He had two responses, which I'll do my level best to paraphrase accurately:

• As a member of the Church, I have come to know God personally and so I trust Him. Through personal experience, I have learnt that He always has reasons for why He does what He does. Sometimes we don't understand those reasons at first, but if we are patient and faithful, we will always understand.

I pushed him a bit on this point since I thought that might be what you would do, and I asked him specifically why, if God could protect the temple dedication, he wouldn't protect the people in his home village. His face actually brightened up with this question, and he gave me the following impassioned answer:

• Before the cyclone, everyone on our island hated each other. Because of the coups and all the political tensions, we have always been divided and angry. But I have had so many emails from family and friends who have written about what a blessing the cyclone has been. The tragedy has caused people to forget their differences and the old hatreds. Everybody is working together now, alongside each other. My cousin told me that she has never before seen the people from our island so unified and so happy.

[bluebell]

That is beautiful Hamba. Please tell that elder thank you for being willing to share his feelings and the personal knowledge he had in regards to the cyclone in Fiji. His witness and testimony have touched my heart and strengthened my faith. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Vinaka vakalevu, bluebell. I'll be certain to pass along your thanks when I see him at General Conference in the morning. For his part, I'm certain he'll be grateful that his simple words have been of use to someone somewhere. That's what he lives for.

[ERMD]

And in my mind, that is the final word in this matter.

 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

So said Elder Oaks this week in conference.

I'm curious to know how believers feel about this? If, as Elder Oaks seems to suggest, God chose to protect the Fiji temple, was it justified, given the impact it had on others. 

Deseret news reported:

The cyclone path crossed over the north of the island, destroying the homes of families and killing people in its wake. The message from the leaders suggests they believe Suva & the temple was protected from the impact of the storm. If that's the case, and divine influence pushed the storm to the north side, away from the south side of the island (where Suva is located), how do you feel?

Did God make the right call. If you had divine power over the elements would you:

1. Nudge it north to provide a faith promoting experience to Mormons. Nevermind the deaths and destruction of homes in the north...
2. Allow it to go south. The temple dedication can always happen another day and it's only bricks and mortar, the church can afford the repairs
3. Send it much further north or south all together. After all the preparation and work, let the dedication celebrations go ahead unhindered and not sacrifice the people on the north of the island while we're at it

How is #3 not the only reasonable course of action. If Mormon leaders and members believe in a God that intervenes to protect the temple, why only protect the south part of the Fiji island. Why not go just a little further and push the whole cyclone out over the sea.

Unfortunately it's very easy for human beings to find meaning and intentionality in randomness. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Unfortunately it's very easy for human beings to find meaning and intentionality in randomness. 

Almost as easy as it for humans to completely dismiss the meaning that others find, as if they know more than the person who has actually experienced it.