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

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, canard78 said:

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. 

God allowed the original Nauvoo Temple to be burnt to the ground, and over 150 years later allowed it to be rebuilt. All for Gods' own purposes it would appear.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

On September 11th, 1992, just before I turned seven years old, hurricane Iniki struck the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where I was born and raised. It was a category 4 storm, with winds over 230 kmh, comparable to Winston. 

During the storm, me and my brother were taken to a house belonging to a friend of my dad. She was divorced from a wealthy businessman, and lived in a small mansion; the architecture made it seem like a fortress, but it was all for show, and our tiny little house we'd left behind actually suffered less damage (we shoulda stayed home). The skies turned dark, the wind and rain started to howl, and the noise was absolutely indescribable. 

During the eye of the storm, we had to change rooms to get to a safer spot; trying not to step in all the broken glass while walking through the mansion, I remember seeing rainwater pouring through the enormous holes torn in the roof, an enormous pillar smashed through a piano, and fallen trees outside where the doors had been broken. 

     

The entire island was basically destroyed; thousands of buildings were demolished in the storm, which ultimately cost nearly two billion dollars in damage. The damage was still recognizable in places even after I'd finished High School. I remember seeing downed telephone poles stretching out to the horizon, immense trees uprooted, roads completely blocked by debris. While many people were injured, thankfully 'only' six people lost their lives -- not even a seventh of the number of casualties in Fiji. Thousands of people were left homeless, including my father. We lived in a tent on the beach surrounded by a fence we built out of sticks to keep wild cattle away from us. My mom and stepdad's house (along with the rest of our neighborhood) was left without electricity for three months. The military sent helicopters with aid which landed in a nearby park, and I remember eating MREs by candlelight. 

Elder Oaks' comments are immoral. If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result. Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong. If God wants to teach us moral lessons about why it's better for us to work together and forget our differences and not to be divided and angry anymore, I can imagine much better ways to go about it than murdering people via natural disaster.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

On September 11th, 1992, just before I turned seven years old, hurricane Iniki struck the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where I was born and raised. It was a category 4 storm, with winds over 230 kmh, comparable to Winston. 

During the storm, me and my brother were taken to a house belonging to a friend of my dad. She was divorced from a wealthy businessman, and lived in a small mansion; the architecture made it seem like a fortress, but it was all for show, and our tiny little house we'd left behind actually suffered less damage (we shoulda stayed home). The skies turned dark, the wind and rain started to howl, and the noise was absolutely indescribable. 

During the eye of the storm, we had to change rooms to get to a safer spot; trying not to step in all the broken glass while walking through the mansion, I remember seeing rainwater pouring through the enormous holes torn in the roof, an enormous pillar smashed through a piano, and fallen trees outside where the doors had been broken. 

     

The entire island was basically destroyed; thousands of buildings were demolished in the storm, which ultimately cost nearly two billion dollars in damage. The damage was still recognizable in places even after I'd finished High School. I remember seeing downed telephone poles stretching out to the horizon, immense trees uprooted, roads completely blocked by debris. While many people were injured, thankfully 'only' six people lost their lives -- not even a seventh of the number of casualties in Fiji. Thousands of people were left homeless, including my father. We lived in a tent on the beach surrounded by a fence we built out of sticks to keep wild cattle away from us. My mom and stepdad's house (along with the rest of our neighborhood) was left without electricity for three months. The military sent helicopters with aid which landed in a nearby park, and I remember eating MREs by candlelight. 

Elder Oaks' comments are immoral. If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result. Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong. If God wants to teach us moral lessons about why it's better for us to work together and forget our differences and not to be divided and angry anymore, I can imagine much better ways to go about it than murdering people via natural disaster.

You would have to prove that mortal death is immoral before making the argument that God is immoral for letting people die.

[canard78]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

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.

It sounds like you have an impressive young man in your ward. Tell him thanks. It's good to be able to perspective. 

Having lived in Asia myself and seen the poverty it's easy to feel more personally attached and invested in their wellbeing. 

I remember a holiday to Philippines which managed to coincide with a storm (we avoided the worst of it). We hired a local guy as a driver for a couple of days to show us around. On one of the days he happened to drive past the house where he and his family lived. He pointed and said: "the storm blew our roof off last night" and laughed. He laughed! To this day I still feel baffled at someone being able to laugh at their roof being blown off. I suppose he had come to expect it.

So while I still don't "get" the idea of God intervening in the way that Elder Oaks claims he has, I'm glad that your missionary can find a sense of meaning and even gratitude in the tragedy. Maybe he's right. Or maybe both his and Elder Oak's reactions to the probable random path of the storm is typical human post-rationalisation of randomness. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to verify that there was intelligence and intent behind a natural disaster. It's all based on assumption - ie potentially false pattern recognition chaotic events. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Gray

[canard78]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

God allowed the original Nauvoo Temple to be burnt to the ground, and over 150 years later allowed it to be rebuilt. All for Gods' own purposes it would appear.

Or maybe it's just more post-rationalised randomness. 

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

On September 11th, 1992, just before I turned seven years old, hurricane Iniki struck the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where I was born and raised. It was a category 4 storm, with winds over 230 kmh, comparable to Winston. 

During the storm, me and my brother were taken to a house belonging to a friend of my dad. She was divorced from a wealthy businessman, and lived in a small mansion; the architecture made it seem like a fortress, but it was all for show, and our tiny little house we'd left behind actually suffered less damage (we shoulda stayed home). The skies turned dark, the wind and rain started to howl, and the noise was absolutely indescribable. 

During the eye of the storm, we had to change rooms to get to a safer spot; trying not to step in all the broken glass while walking through the mansion, I remember seeing rainwater pouring through the enormous holes torn in the roof, an enormous pillar smashed through a piano, and fallen trees outside where the doors had been broken. 

     

The entire island was basically destroyed; thousands of buildings were demolished in the storm, which ultimately cost nearly two billion dollars in damage. The damage was still recognizable in places even after I'd finished High School. I remember seeing downed telephone poles stretching out to the horizon, immense trees uprooted, roads completely blocked by debris. While many people were injured, thankfully 'only' six people lost their lives -- not even a seventh of the number of casualties in Fiji. Thousands of people were left homeless, including my father. We lived in a tent on the beach surrounded by a fence we built out of sticks to keep wild cattle away from us. My mom and stepdad's house (along with the rest of our neighborhood) was left without electricity for three months. The military sent helicopters with aid which landed in a nearby park, and I remember eating MREs by candlelight. 

Elder Oaks' comments are immoral. If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result. Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong. If God wants to teach us moral lessons about why it's better for us to work together and forget our differences and not to be divided and angry anymore, I can imagine much better ways to go about it than murdering people via natural disaster.

So the fact that my wife has cancer, and you or I don't makes God wrong?  He is responsible for it?

You have some growing up to do.

Edited April 8, 2016 by ERMD

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to verify that there was intelligence and intent behind a natural disaster. It's all based on assumption - ie potentially false pattern recognition chaotic events. 

There's also no way for anyone to verify that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There's no way to verify that the Atonement is real or that God even exists. 

But your belief in those things isn't based on assumptions, is it?

Is it reasonable to believe that the testimony of the elder from Fiji is based on assumptions just because it can't be verified?

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Or maybe it's just more post-rationalised randomness. 

Maybe. But such an argument just presents more difficulties.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There's also no way for anyone to verify that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There's no way to verify that the Atonement is real or that God even exists. 

But your belief in those things isn't based on assumptions, is it?

Is it reasonable to believe that the testimony of the elder from Fiji is based on assumptions just because it can't be verified?

 

If you take that approach to everything in life you'd spend your time wondering if a pebble in your shoe or a rainy day or a thousand other ordinary events are signs from God. It sounds like a recipe for insanity. 

[thesometimesaint]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you take that approach to everything in life you'd spend your time wondering if a pebble in your shoe or a rainy day or a thousand other ordinary events are signs from God. It sounds like a recipe for insanity. 

Or just live in a fallen world. We are not responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives. We are responsible for how we respond to them.

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you take that approach to everything in life you'd spend your time wondering if a pebble in your shoe or a rainy day or a thousand other ordinary events are signs from God. It sounds like a recipe for insanity. 

I don't think so. Most things it doesn't matter one way or the other so there's no reason to spend any time on it anyway. 

But approaching life in the same way an atheist approaches it, seems, for a religious person, more insane than being believing. 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think so. Most things it doesn't matter one way or the other so there's no reason to spend any time on it anyway. 

But approaching life in the same way an atheist approaches it, seems, for a religious person, more insane than being believing. 

You assume that, but how do you know that the pebble in your shoe isn't God's way of telling you to lengthen your stride?

I don't approach life like an atheist - I just don't think that you superstition is a necessary or helpful component of spirituality. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

You assume that, but how do you know that the pebble in your shoe isn't God's way of telling you to lengthen your stride?

I don't approach life like an atheist - I just don't think that you superstition is a necessary or helpful component of spirituality. 

Because lengthening your stride is inconsistent with having a pebble in your shoe.

Why is Atheism any less of a superstition than Theism?

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Because lengthening your stride is inconsistent with having a pebble in your shoe.

Why is Atheism any less of a superstition than Theism?

Great, maybe it's a signal that God wants you to shorten your stride. Taking random events for signs is just an exercise in reading the tea leaves. 

Atheists can definitely be superstitious. Atheists can believe in lucky rabbit's feet and all that. You don't need to believe in God to believe in supernatural causality. I believe in God but I reject supernatural causality (superstition). 

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Great, maybe it's a signal that God wants you to shorten your stride. Taking random events for signs is just an exercise in reading the tea leaves. 

Atheists can definitely be superstitious. Atheists can believe in lucky rabbit's feet and all that. You don't need to believe in God to believe in supernatural causality. I believe in God but I reject supernatural causality (superstition). 

Or maybe it is God telling you to take that pebble out of your shoe.

Such is inconsistent with the LDS faith, but is more consistent with Deism. A belief that God made the world then refused to have any effect on it thereafter.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Or maybe it is God telling you to take that pebble out of your shoe.

Such is inconsistent with the LDS faith, but is more consistent with Deism. A belief that God made the world then refused to have any effect on it thereafter.

Or maybe a pebble in your shoe is just a pebble in your shoe. Not that I'm saying that symbolic meaning can't be grokked from something like that, but imagining a God who sends messages like that is madness. Madness I tell you!

I'm not a deist either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Or just live in a fallen world. We are not responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives. We are responsible for how we respond to them.

I agree with this part..We are not responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives..but my extended family blamed me for the death of my husband..had we just been active members or Temple married..little snide remarks that insinuated that I had betrayed him somehow.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

You assume that, but how do you know that the pebble in your shoe isn't God's way of telling you to lengthen your stride?

I don't approach life like an atheist - I just don't think that you superstition is a necessary or helpful component of spirituality. 

If there was a reason for God to want me to take bigger steps, then it definitely could.  I have no problem with that.  Do i have to know one way or the other though, to the point that I must spend time and energy trying to see if everything is a sign from God?  No, i don't think so.

Isn't equating a belief in God's involvement in our life with superstition something that atheists are fond of doing?   And just to be clear, i'm not saying that you approach life like an atheist, but rather that you seem to approach this issue (God's presence in our personal lives) the same way that an atheist would approach it.  I'm sorry if i've misunderstood you on that.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree with this part..We are not responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives..but my extended family blamed me for the death of my husband..had we just been active members or Temple married..little snide remarks that insinuated that I had betrayed him somehow.

Some people are just jerks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, canard78 said:

Maybe he's right. Or maybe both his and Elder Oak's reactions to the probable random path of the storm is typical human post-rationalisation of randomness. 

Perhaps. As I recently wrote on another thread, I have personally seen sight restored to the blind and life restored to the deceased following priesthood blessings that I've participated in, but maybe those things were just going to happen anyway.

The key, it seems to me, is to actually know God, and He is knowable. We can interact with Him, talk to Him, and receive answers from Him. One of the best checks on supposed randomness, I've found, is when God tells me ahead of time that He is going to do something, and then I get to wait and watch for Him to do just that. 

I had that experience just this week when an assurance spoken to me in the temple in November -- so clearly that I wrote it down in my journal and shared it with my bishop when I renewed my recommend -- finally came to pass in a series of stunningly interlaced divine interventions. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[strappinglad]

Atheists are aware or should be, that if there is no God then there is no such thing as morality. An action is neither moral nor immoral, it just is. Morality then becomes a purely human construct and can be dispensed with  whenever desired. Life is survival of the fittest and the strongest and the one with the most weapons and most ravenous supporters. Sound familiar? Is this not a large part of the battle we fight daily? Do we love and care for even our enemies, or do we crush all opposition without mercy? Which world do you prefer, and does it matter?

[Russell C McGregor]

17 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Elder Oaks' comments are immoral.

No. They are not.

And if I were to characterise your bitter and angry outburst as "immoral," I'm sure our ever-vigilant "moderators" would immediately thread-ban me so that you can continue your diatribe uninterrupted.

So I won't.

But they will smile serenely upon your rant.

17 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result.

I don't agree. Nobody is responsible for everything they could have prevented but didn't. Weather systems are inherently chaotic, and every possible intervention could have consequences you cannot imagine.

17 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong.

Wrong according to your opinion, which is clearly circular. For you, mortal life is the most important consideration because after all it's the only life there is, because there isn't really a God anywhere.

But if there is a God, then all your calculations are wrong; but you go right on arguing as if they were still valid even admitting the existence of God for the sake of discussion.

Your position is thus incoherent.

17 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

If God wants to teach us moral lessons about why it's better for us to work together and forget our differences and not to be divided and angry anymore, I can imagine much better ways to go about it than murdering people via natural disaster.

God has all power, and the absolute right to exercise it. Calling death by natural disaster "murder" is mere angry emoting.

 

 

[rodheadlee]

21 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

On September 11th, 1992, just before I turned seven years old, hurricane Iniki struck the Hawaiian island of Kauai, where I was born and raised. It was a category 4 storm, with winds over 230 kmh, comparable to Winston. 

During the storm, me and my brother were taken to a house belonging to a friend of my dad. She was divorced from a wealthy businessman, and lived in a small mansion; the architecture made it seem like a fortress, but it was all for show, and our tiny little house we'd left behind actually suffered less damage (we shoulda stayed home). The skies turned dark, the wind and rain started to howl, and the noise was absolutely indescribable. 

During the eye of the storm, we had to change rooms to get to a safer spot; trying not to step in all the broken glass while walking through the mansion, I remember seeing rainwater pouring through the enormous holes torn in the roof, an enormous pillar smashed through a piano, and fallen trees outside where the doors had been broken. 

     

The entire island was basically destroyed; thousands of buildings were demolished in the storm, which ultimately cost nearly two billion dollars in damage. The damage was still recognizable in places even after I'd finished High School. I remember seeing downed telephone poles stretching out to the horizon, immense trees uprooted, roads completely blocked by debris. While many people were injured, thankfully 'only' six people lost their lives -- not even a seventh of the number of casualties in Fiji. Thousands of people were left homeless, including my father. We lived in a tent on the beach surrounded by a fence we built out of sticks to keep wild cattle away from us. My mom and stepdad's house (along with the rest of our neighborhood) was left without electricity for three months. The military sent helicopters with aid which landed in a nearby park, and I remember eating MREs by candlelight. 

Elder Oaks' comments are immoral. If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result. Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong. If God wants to teach us moral lessons about why it's better for us to work together and forget our differences and not to be divided and angry anymore, I can imagine much better ways to go about it than murdering people via natural disaster.

Coincidentally my Cruising Daddy got an old woodie sailboat that had been "destroyed" in Ininki and rebuilt her. He spent some 20 years sailing her round the world with his SO. Kind of a metamorphosis I'd say. He died from cancer in Rodney Bay, not quite making the full circumnavigation. Thanks for reminding me to get his temple work done.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree with this part..We are not responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives..but my extended family blamed me for the death of my husband..had we just been active members or Temple married..little snide remarks that insinuated that I had betrayed him somehow.

This is the first time I've read about your situation. I am so sorry for your loss, and your family's response to it. I really can't imagine such remarks, as anything but cruel. Sometimes it is better to just forgive them for they know not what they do. May the Lords' peace be unto you and yours.

Edited April 9, 2016 by thesometimesaint