Does God Know When We Will Die?

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, William Jones said:

I mean infallible when they are supposedly acting or at least claiming to be acting as a prophet. If I claim to be a prophet and say something will happen and it doesn't, then what kind of prophet am I? A false one, right?

Anyway, when are prophets acting as such? Why won't they tell us when this is happening? Why do they need the wiggle room of silence as to when they are using their powers if they are truly speaking for God?

If there is a fallible element (which I think lds theology demands) then they aren't always sure themselves. That's why I gave the example I did. I can understand criticizing them as unreliable if most of what they said is wrong. But you're making the claim that every single element has to be true. That seems an odd position to take.

A famous oft quoted example of this was Joseph worriedly asking Emma if Jerusalem had walls because he thought he'd been deceived during the translation of the Book of Mormon. He clearly didn't have absolute clear knowledge even though he had a fallible knowledge.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On April 20, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Truly this is a powerful all-knowing God who has His hand in every detail of our lives.  Which leads me to my question:

Does God, being this all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient being, know how and when we, His children, will die?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

So, I got my mission call signed by the President of the Church, David McKay. "You are called to serve in the Central American Mission. You will report to the Mission Home in Salt Lake City on August 3, 1966." Along with the call came various instructions on how to prepare, what items I would need, forms to fill out.... the usual stuff. Oh, the excitement!

I was so disappointed to find out President McKay was not a true prophet. He gave me a false reporting date. He should have foreseen that on receiving my medical records the missionary department would move my date back three months. Since I would be in third world countries, they insisted I have surgery on a knee injury that wasn't healing properly and could cause future problems. If Pres McKay were a real prophet he would have known this. He would not have given me that false entry date and created false hopes in a naive young believer. He should have known, but he didn't. God should have told him, but he didn't. The Church is not true. Oh the horror!

Q.E.D.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 114 wasn't a prophecy.
You may be able to call it a commandment, but people don't keep those all the time.
 

• 1 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto all the world.

No prophecy.

You're correct it wasn't a prophecy...it was a calling to serve a mission the following spring, something God would have know would not take place due to His being fully aware that Patton would die in October of the very year He issued the mission call.  The problem then is why did God issue a call for a mission He know would never be served. I reconcile that problem quite easily...in that I don't believe God had anything to do with this call...it was all Joseph Smith speaking as God...and as a man and not knowing how the future would turn out...issued the call...he then tried to cover the fact up by issuing other revelations to justify Pattton's premature death.  But that just how I see it...and respect that you see it differently

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, I got my mission call signed by the President of the Church, David McKay. "You are called to serve in the Central American Mission. You will report to the Mission Home in Salt Lake City on August 3, 1966." Along with the call came various instructions on how to prepare, what items I would need, forms to fill out.... the usual stuff. Oh, the excitement!

I was so disappointed to find out President McKay was not a true prophet. He gave me a false reporting date. He should have foreseen that on receiving my medical records the missionary department would move my date back three months. Since I would be in third world countries, they insisted I have surgery on a knee injury that wasn't healing properly and could cause future problems. If Pres McKay were a real prophet he would have known this. He would not have given me that false entry date and created false hopes in a naive young believer. He should have known, but he didn't. God should have told him, but he didn't. The Church is not true. Oh the horror!

Q.E.D.

ummm...ok. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're correct it wasn't a prophecy...it was a calling to serve a mission the following spring, something God would have know would not take place due to His being fully aware that Patton would die in October of the very year He issued the mission call.  The problem then is why did God issue a call for a mission He know would never be served. I reconcile that problem quite easily...in that I don't believe God had anything to do with this call...it was all Joseph Smith speaking as God...and as a man and not knowing how the future would turn out...issued the call...he then tried to cover the fact up by issuing other revelations to justify Pattton's premature death.  But that just how I see it...and respect that you see it differently

I reconcile it easily too.
Patten was asked by God to serve a mission.
He asked God for a martyr's death.
God decided to grant his request and release him from the mission call.

• This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed.

Circumstances change based on agency.  Knowing what will happen doesn't have to change the journey.

 

[William Jones]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If there is a fallible element (which I think lds theology demands) then they aren't always sure themselves. That's why I gave the example I did. I can understand criticizing them as unreliable if most of what they said is wrong. But you're making the claim that every single element has to be true. That seems an odd position to take.

A famous oft quoted example of this was Joseph worriedly asking Emma if Jerusalem had walls because he thought he'd been deceived during the translation of the Book of Mormon. He clearly didn't have absolute clear knowledge even though he had a fallible knowledge.

 

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, William Jones said:

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

We all have Agency. To give you a mortal example. I have 3 children. I did nothing the deliberately harm them. I told them repeatedly to not touch the hot stove, but knew full well that each would touch it.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, William Jones said:

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

Why is it that critics always go back to the "why doesn't God PROVE things" trope?

God doesn't want us to know without first exercising faith.
The confusion is intentional.  It demands faith of us.  Why is this such a difficult concept for critics to grasp?

Personally, I can't wait till God starts proving things to all mankind and the critics get to eat some humble pie.

[William Jones]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Why is it that critics always go back to the "why doesn't God PROVE things" trope?

God doesn't want us to know without first exercising faith.
The confusion is intentional.  It demands faith of us.  Why is this such a difficult concept for critics to grasp?

Personally, I can't wait till God starts proving things to all mankind and the critics get to eat some humble pie.

Precisely because He doesn't prove things and supposedly forces us to rely on prophets and apostles that are all too human. Yet we will be supposedly punished or get less if we don't follow the mistake prone humans. To me, the mormon view just doesn't seem fair. I tend to think in more of a deist approach. God leaves us alone so we can truly learn.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, William Jones said:

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

When you consider all that is not confused, you will see that His message is quite perfect, whether through prophets, scripture, the light of Christ or the Spirit.

7 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Precisely because He doesn't prove things and supposedly forces us to rely on prophets and apostles that are all too human. Yet we will be supposedly punished or get less if we don't follow the mistake prone humans. To me, the mormon view just doesn't seem fair. I tend to think in more of a deist approach. God leaves us alone so we can truly learn.

We have more than prophets and apostles and their scriptures; we have the light of Christ and the Spirit.

Edited April 21, 2017 by CV75

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I reconcile it easily too.
Patten was asked by God to serve a mission.
He asked God for a martyr's death.
God decided to grant his request and release him from the mission call.

• This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the elders of the kingdom are placed.

Circumstances change based on agency.  Knowing what will happen doesn't have to change the journey.

 

I respect your reasoning...but I believe it gives too much latitude to what can reasonable be supported... but I'm willing to be proven wrong

[Johnnie Cake]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why is it that critics always go back to the "why doesn't God PROVE things" trope?

God doesn't want us to know without first exercising faith.
The confusion is intentional.  It demands faith of us.  Why is this such a difficult concept for critics to grasp?

Personally, I can't wait till God starts proving things to all mankind and the critics get to eat some humble pie.

I have my fork and knife ready to eat that humble pie...but I won't be holding my breath that I'll be doing so any time soon

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, William Jones said:

I guess let me put it this way: would you agree that God is infallible? If so, if He tells something to his prophet and the prophet relates the God given message to the people, couldn't we say the message is infallible? Also, can't we assume that the infallible God is an infallible communicator? Sure humans are imperfect and not God, but God is perfect, right? So can't we assume that a perfect being will perfectly communicate His perfect message perfectly to his imperfect prophet?

If there is a communication problem, wouldn't a better system be having God communicate his perfect message to a wide audience all at once so there is less chance of imperfect communication?

All of that is great Protestant theology, no question.  And it means that the Bible is infallible and perfect in all respects (sola scriptura).  God, the reasoning goes, would not permit any error in Holy Writ.  The reality is that God makes no such promise.  The same applies to Papal infallibility.  Any act of God, or communication from God goes through a human mediator, who is by nature fallible.  For LDS theology and for biblical theology this means that only the Holy Spirit can verify, confirm, or clarify any communication, whether by prophet, priesthood, vision, or text.  This means that only individual testimony has meaning in that context, and is non-transferrable.  We and the apostles are in the same boat:  We are all mere earthen vessels (clay pots), even when we seek treasure in heaven, and we must interpret the Word of God by the same means in which it was given and received -- by the Holy Spirit.  Those are tough demands, but that is the human condition.  No one promised us a rose garden.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Quote

Why is it that critics always go back to the "why doesn't God PROVE things" trope?

God doesn't want us to know without first exercising faith.
The confusion is intentional.  It demands faith of us.  Why is this such a difficult concept for critics to grasp?

Personally, I can't wait till God starts proving things to all mankind and the critics get to eat some humble pie.

I have my fork and knife ready to eat that humble pie...but I won't be holding my breath that I'll be doing so any time soon

Ok, I maybe was a wee bit arrogant with the humble pie comment.
But that doesn't address the point.

Why do critics always expect demonstrable proof and evidence?  What in all concept of religion suggests that such things should even exist?
Why do critics consider the faithful to be foolish for not requiring evidence?

How is religion supposed to work?  How is God supposed to interact with man?
Should concrete evidence even be part of the equation?  Spiritual evidence sure, but temporal physical evidence?  Why do critics think that God is supposed to provide undeniable proof of anything?

[William Jones]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All of that is great Protestant theology, no question.  And it means that the Bible is infallible and perfect in all respects (sola scriptura).  God, the reasoning goes, would not permit any error in Holy Writ.  The reality is that God makes no such promise.  The same applies to Papal infallibility.  Any act of God, or communication from God goes through a human mediator, who is by nature fallible.  For LDS theology and for biblical theology this means that only the Holy Spirit can verify, confirm, or clarify any communication, whether by prophet, priesthood, vision, or text.  This means that only individual testimony has meaning in that context, and is non-transferrable.  We and the apostles are in the same boat:  We are all mere earthen vessels (clay pots), even when we seek treasure in heaven, and we must interpret the Word of God by the same means in which it was given and received -- by the Holy Spirit.  Those are tough demands, but that is the human condition.  No one promised us a rose garden.

Fair enough, but if we are in the same boat, doesn't that diminish the role of prophets and apostles? I think there shouldn't be apostles or prophets and that God shouldn't need intermediaries to speak to us collectively.

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

We all have Agency. To give you a mortal example. I have 3 children. I did nothing the deliberately harm them. I told them repeatedly to not touch the hot stove, but knew full well that each would touch it.

Did they actually touch it or was that a metaphor of sorts?

Yes we all can do what we wish and should be allowed to do so and benefit or suffer here from what we do here and now.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Fair enough, but if we are in the same boat, doesn't that diminish the role of prophets and apostles? I think there shouldn't be apostles or prophets and that God shouldn't need intermediaries to speak to us collectively.

We are a community which requires boundaries to membership and doctrinal consistency to some degree.  If you are sola scriptura restricted to the bible, you should not be Mormon.  You don't fit- go follow your own drummer, fine, but you do not speak the vocabulary of the community.  If you are a tea party believer and you join the communist party the fit will not work- one way or another you will not last in that community.  

The community standards are clearly defined in the temple recommend interview.

We have ordinances and that presumes, for us, authority and authority is also necessary for purposes of judgement in disputes between members.  All that requires authority and that is why we have a hierarchy.

When difficult problems arise. someone needs to define the "flock" position, or there is no flock.

Look at the chaos in the"Christian" and Evangelical world- that is certainly not "One Faith, One Baptism".  It's ridicuous

And THAT is why we need prophets.  This is Christ's church, not the church of everybody's separate opinion.

Edited April 21, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I respect your reasoning...but I believe it gives too much latitude to what can reasonable be supported... but I'm willing to be proven wrong

I don't think so.  I am not sure you know what that word means.

Prove that you should be here typing your little heart out.  

You have an abundance of faith senor

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, William Jones said:

Fair enough, but if we are in the same boat, doesn't that diminish the role of prophets and apostles? I think there shouldn't be apostles or prophets and that God shouldn't need intermediaries to speak to us collectively.

Fortunately God disagrees.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I maybe was a wee bit arrogant with the humble pie comment.
But that doesn't address the point.

Why do critics always expect demonstrable proof and evidence?  What in all concept of religion suggests that such things should even exist?
Why do critics consider the faithful to be foolish for not requiring evidence?

How is religion supposed to work?  How is God supposed to interact with man?
Should concrete evidence even be part of the equation?  Spiritual evidence sure, but temporal physical evidence?  Why do critics think that God is supposed to provide undeniable proof of anything?

Youre making several leaps in judgement my friend...at no point, to my knowledge, has anyone called the faithful foolish on this board nor are critics the only ones requesting demonstrable proof and evidence.  I've often been requested to provide CFR's and proof and evidence on claims I've made by board members. I believe skepticism is an asset when considering a claim...trust but verify. I always like to have a little proof with my leaps of faith

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Youre making several leaps in judgement my friend...at no point, to my knowledge, has anyone called the faithful foolish on this board nor are critics the only ones requesting demonstrable proof and evidence.  I've often been requested to provide CFR's and proof and evidence on claims I've made by board members. I believe skepticism is an asset when considering a claim...trust but verify. I always like to have a little proof with my leaps of faith

And a CFR is entirely appropriate when a claim that can be proven is made.
If I said "on 18 Jan 1867 Brigham Young taught XYZ" I should be able to show my source.

But take something like the statement "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God".
You cannot provide proof and evidence to that effect without unavoidably entering the realm of faith.
You either believe he was (have a testimony) despite presence or lack of evidence.
Or you don't believe he was (lack that testimony), and in that case any evidence would not likely convince you even if it could be produced.  *Laman & Lemuel syndrome.

Many things fall into this category.  Jesus was the Son of God? Book of Mormon came from God?  Priesthood has power to heal the sick?  Plural Marriage was the will of God?
Searching for proof will never yield a result.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And a CFR is entirely appropriate when a claim that can be proven is made.
If I said "on 18 Jan 1867 Brigham Young taught XYZ" I should be able to show my source.

But take something like the statement "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God".
You cannot provide proof and evidence to that effect without unavoidably entering the realm of faith.
You either believe he was (have a testimony) despite presence or lack of evidence.
Or you don't believe he was (lack that testimony), and in that case any evidence would not likely convince you even if it could be produced.  *Laman & Lemuel syndrome.

Many things fall into this category.  Jesus was the Son of God? Book of Mormon came from God?  Priesthood has power to heal the sick?  Plural Marriage was the will of God?
Searching for proof will never yield a result.

 

Weren't we talking about a statement allegedly made by JS after Pattons death?  All I've said was that it was rather convenient for Joseph to make such a self serving statement and I inquired if there might have been any pre-death statements by Patton that would confirm his alleged death wish

Edited April 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Weren't we talking about a statement allegedly made by JS after Pattons death?  All I've said was that it was rather convenient for Joseph to make such a self serving statement and I inquired if their might have been any pre-death statements by Patton that would confirm his alleged death wish

Actually, I believe we were talking about D&C 114 being given by God if God knew Patten was going to die.

But yes, I understand your request for contemporary documentation of the request for martyrdom.  Wilford Woodruff is the source and we don't know where he heard it.  He was a contemporary of both men and could simply be an eyewitness to a private conversation documented nowhere else.
So either Woodruff lied about that discussion or he didn't.  That's really what it comes down to.
We either assume a vast web of lies started by Joseph and Sidney and Oliver and continued down through Brigham, Heber, John, Wilford etc.

Or we exercise faith that these men weren't ALL charlatans who lied when it served their purpose.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually, I believe we were talking about D&C 114 being given by God if God knew Patten was going to die.

But yes, I understand your request for contemporary documentation of the request for martyrdom.  Wilford Woodruff is the source and we don't know where he heard it.  He was a contemporary of both men and could simply be an eyewitness to a private conversation documented nowhere else.
So either Woodruff lied about that discussion or he didn't.  That's really what it comes down to.
We either assume a vast web of lies started by Joseph and Sidney and Oliver and continued down through Brigham, Heber, John, Wilford etc.

Or we exercise faith that these men weren't ALL charlatans who lied when it served their purpose.

To be straight, I'm not suggesting that woodruff lied, I'm suggesting Jospeh made it up after the fact because it made his revelations look bad that God issued a mission call that Patton couldn't fulfill. Again I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To be straight, I'm not suggesting that woodruff lied, I'm suggesting Jospeh made it up after the fact because it made his revelations look bad that God issued a mission call that Patton couldn't fulfill. Again I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. 

If you don't need proof to believe that JS lied, why do you need proof to believe that he didn't?  Isn't that kind of a double standard?