They just don't make miracles like they used to

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think those incidents prompt some questions about divine intervention and why God seems to randomly pick and choose who He intervenes to save or not. If God is behind those incidents, then we can conclude He’s a bit fickle. Inconsistent even.

In relation to the Spanish Fork incident, why did He wait 14 hours before intervening?

Could the interventions have been Thetans? 

Or the Great Spaghetti Monster. Hence my earlier point about sharing miracles. Doing so to convince someone or to satisfy their curiosity is pointless. Such objections as yours do not explain the actual event as in this case with the police officers.  Wondering why God did it in some particular way neither impeaches their witness nor changes the nature of the event.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Or the Great Spaghetti Monster. Hence my earlier point about sharing miracles. Doing so to convince someone or to satisfy their curiosity is pointless. Such objections as yours do not explain the actual event as in this case with the. police officers  Wondering why God did it in some particular way neither impeaches their witness nor changes the nature of the event.

 

I’m not seeking to explain the events, nor object to them. I’m seeking to objectively examine them and explore all the possibilities.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not seeking to explain the events, nor object to them. I’m seeking to objectively examine them and explore all the possibilities.

What is your explanation?

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not seeking to explain the events, nor object to them. I’m seeking to objectively examine them and explore all the possibilities.

 

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is your explanation?

Did you miss the bit where I said I’m not seeking to explain them?

There are lots of options to consider though. If we start with the supernatural option, we need to consider all potential sources of supernatural intervention. Perhaps the four officers all have ESP skills that they’re unaware of, for instance.

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Thanks for those quotes. I’m not sure how they answer my question, can you explain?

The answer to your question is in those scriptures.

[Marginal Gains]

22 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Thanks for those quotes. I’m not sure how they answer my question, can you explain?

 

1 minute ago, nuclearfuels said:

The answer to your question is in those scriptures.

In which case, you should be able to explain.

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Did you miss the bit where I said I’m not seeking to explain them?

There are lots of options to consider though. If we start with the supernatural option, we need to consider all potential sources of supernatural intervention. Perhaps the four officers all have ESP skills that they’re unaware of, for instance.

This sounds like looking for explanations....”In relation to the Spanish Fork incident, why did He wait 14 hours before intervening? Could the interventions have been Thetans?” The word “why” is often used to ask for explanations. ESP skills. OK.

Reminds me of the great violinist Yehudi Menuhin who tried to find explanations for his childhood prodigy and immense talent. He couldn’t find a suitable answer. It ended up messing up his mind.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/19/2018 at 11:59 AM, The Nehor said:

I have annoyed other LDS by suggesting something they consider to be miraculous might, in fact, not be a miracle. I mostly stopped making such suggestions because they would jump on my lack of faith as the reason I did not believe angels were visiting their bathroom and rearranging their mirrors.

Angels in the reading room fiddling with my mirrors aren’t exactly what I had in mind.

I have learned by sad experience not to share here and elsewhere things that would better be reserved for more private, respectful, and needful situations.

 

[Bernard Gui]

In Alma 26, Ammon briefly wonders why God chose not to consign him and his brothers to hell, but rather saved them and gave them miraculous missionary experiences. Instead of that, he rejoiced that it had happened. In conclusion, he says this:

“37 Now my brethren, we see that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; yea, he numbereth his people, and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth. Now this is my joy, and my great thanksgiving; yea, and I will give thanks unto my God forever. Amen.”

That’s how I like to think of miracles. 

[Kenngo1969]

Marginal Gains,

Essentially, you are your own trier-of-fact (your own decisionmaker) with respect to any cases for or against belief in a higher power or in a supreme being.  You decide what evidence you will accept in favor of such a belief (if any), what weight you will accord any evidence you accept in favor of such a belief (if any), what evidence you will exclude in favor of such a belief, and so on.  Yes, many will accept the seeming arbitrariness of such events (granting, solely for the sake of this discussion, of course!  that such events might, however unlikely the prospect, actually occur) as conclusive evidence against such events actually occurring.  

In more than a few well-publicized court cases, I have scratched my head and wondered how a reasonable, reasonably intelligent, reasonably careful jury possibly could reach the conclusion it has in such cases.  (OJ Simpson, anyone?)  But however entitled I might feel to harbor my own opinion in any given case I am not the trier-of-fact in that case: I wasn't there; I didn't hear the witnesses' testimony, didn't see their demeanor, didn't decide their credibility, and so on.  You are your own trier-of-fact, and have decided conclusively, based on their seeming arbitrariness, that such events as the ones under discussion here do not and cannot occur. Fine. But others have made different decisions based on what evidence they choose to admit, what evidence they choose to exclude, what weight they choose to give to any particular piece of evidence, and so on.  You are not the trier-of-fact in the cases they decide, and they are not the trier-of-fact in cases you decide.

If you want to say, for example, "I will only change my opinion if I meet the person or persons involved, if I am able to question them at length, if I am able to meet and to question treating personnel at length, if I am able to compare before-and-after x-rays or other reliable test results," and so on, that's your decision.   One neither can nor will force you to make a different one.  But neither can nor should you presume to make such a decision for someone else: You are not the trier-of-fact in another's case.

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In Alma 26, Ammon briefly wonders why God chose not to consign him and his brothers to hell, but rather saved them and gave them miraculous missionary experiences. Instead of that, he rejoiced that it had happened. In conclusion, he says this:

“37 Now my brethren, we see that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; yea, he numbereth his people, and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth. Now this is my joy, and my great thanksgiving; yea, and I will give thanks unto my God forever. Amen.”

That’s how I like to think of miracles. 

It's also important to have a longer-term perspective ... which is, of course, impossible for someone who does not believe in a life to come.  Why does God grant a miracle in one case, but, seemingly, not in another?  Beats me! I sure as heck hope there's a life to come, given the myriad ways in which this one sucks!  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe that what some term as being "miracles" still very much occur. 

Okay.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I also believe it has nothing to do with whether or not the people involved are Mormons (or any other religion).

I think both kinds of miracles are happening.  Some are relative to Mormonism, and many are not.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

IMO, it's more spiritual than religious.  

I can respect that, and even agree with it to some extent.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Why only give examples involving Mormons? 

This is an LDS message board.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Just curious....are they the only ones you're familiar with?

Nope.  They were the ones that came to mind as relevant to a discussion on an LDS-related message board.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

I think it's hard not to attribute a lot of the "miracles" to chance.  About 25 years ago, I had a friend that had recently returned from a mission.  She desperately needed a job and had been looking for some time.  She prayed and prayed during her job search but still nothing.  However, she continued to pray and submit resumes everywhere.  Finally, she got a job and attributed it to being a miracle.  (Perhaps it really was a miracle as she wasn't the best at interviews and this is where she would continually lose out in her search).  However, she evenutally got a job despite her interviewing skills.  So, isn't the real explanation of this story that she simply was persistent in her search and that due to the law of averages, she would eventually get a job?  I raised this objection and she was adamant that God intervened. 

Perhaps, miracles are really just in the eye of the beholder, e.g., there isn't a miracle, really, unless there is someone to claim that a miracle occurred?  Perhaps one of the gifts of the spirit is the ability to claim that God is somehow responsible for occurrences that are really just random events?  Maybe it's just a variation of the god of the gaps argument, e.g., attributing the unexplained, from the miracle believer's point of view, to God?

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

I think both kinds of miracles are happening.  Some are relative to Mormonism, and many are not.

There are most likely more that are not relative to Mormonism than those that are, IMO

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is an LDS message board.

And still diverse where we discuss other topics and religions as well.  I just always think it's a bit odd when members of the church lean towards believing that our creator doesn't send blessings and miracles to all his children.  It's definitely not just an exclusive Mormon thing.  I work with many who are not members of the church and who have experienced miraculous healings and other occurrences in their lives. 

I'm not saying you believe this, but was just curious as to why you only linked to the ones you did as examples.

Thanks for your response.

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

I think those incidents prompt some questions about divine intervention and why God seems to randomly pick and choose who He intervenes to save or not.

"Seems to randomly pick" being the operative words here.

I don't think divine intervention is random.  I just think we are limited in our ability to perceive God's purposes.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

If God is behind those incidents, then we can conclude He’s a bit fickle. Inconsistent even.

Yes, you can conclude that.

Or we can conclude something quite different.  God is perfect.  He is omniscient.  He is benevolent.  He is literally our Father.  He has prepared a plan for us, at the center of which is the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

We, however, can only "see through a glass, darkly."  We simply aren't equipped to fully understand God and why He does, or does not, do something.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8).  Nevertheless, I think we can, through a process of elimination, arrive at the conclusion that God's motives are not "fickle."  "Fickle" seems incompatible with the perfected attributes of God (including, most particularly, His unchangeableness).  It also seems to contravene His overarching objective: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal elife of man."  (Moses 1:39).

So God has a plan, and is carrying it out perfectly.  That will, in His economy, mean that He intervenes at times and not in others.  We aren't sufficiently "in the know" about all the factors that God takes into account.  He's omniscient and perfectly good and benevolent.  We are not.

I am reminded here of the story from Alma 14, when Alma and Amulek were forced to witness the horrific murders of innocents.  They theoretically had the ability to call upon God and stop it, but they did not.  Here's why (emphases added):

Quote

1 And it came to pass after he had made an end of speaking unto the people many of them did believe on his words, and began to repent, and to search the scriptures.

2 But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.

3 And they were also angry with Alma and Amulek; and because they had testified so plainly against their wickedness, they sought to put them away privily.

...

9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

12 Now Amulek said unto Alma: Behold, perhaps they will burn us also.

13 And Alma said: Be it according to the will of the Lord. But, behold, our work is not finished; therefore they burn us not.

 The Lord's economy, and timing, and intervention, and non-intervention, and so on, are all things happening according to a plan that we comprehend in only its most basic elements.

So I don't have a thorough explanation as to why God does or does not act/intervene in a given situation.  But I believe that whatever His reasons are, Him being "fickle" is not among them.

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

In relation to the Spanish Fork incident, why did He wait 14 hours before intervening? Why not save the Mother?

I don't know.

There's a reductionist element here, is there not?  Why not save the mother?  Why not stop the terrorists on 9/11?  Why not stop the bloodbath in Syria?  Why not remove Stalin or Hitler or Mao before they caused the deaths of millions?  

I don't have a specific answer, except to observe that A) agency appears to be a huge factor in such contemplations, and B) God being "fickle" is not a factor.  He's perfect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are most likely more that are not relative to Mormonism than those that are, IMO

"Relative to Mormonism" meaning "Having a direct causal effect upon Mormons and their Church?"  Sure, I'm open to that.  We're a tiny fraction of humanity, after all. 

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And still diverse where we discuss other topics and religions as well.  I just always think it's a bit odd when members of the church lean towards believing that our creator doesn't send blessings and miracles to all his children. 

I haven't noticed any such leaning.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's definitely not just an exclusive Mormon thing. 

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I work with many who are not members of the church and who have experienced miraculous healings and other occurrences in their lives. 

I believe that.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not saying you believe this, but was just curious as to why you only linked to the ones you did as examples.

Thanks for your response.

No prob.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it's hard not to attribute a lot of the "miracles" to chance.  About 25 years ago, I had a friend that had recently returned from a mission.  She desperately needed a job and had been looking for some time.  She prayed and prayed during her job search but still nothing.  However, she continued to pray and submit resumes everywhere.  Finally, she got a job and attributed it to being a miracle.  (Perhaps it really was a miracle as she wasn't the best at interviews and this is where she would continually lose out in her search).  However, she evenutally got a job despite her interviewing skills.  So, isn't the real explanation of this story that she simply was persistent in her search and that due to the law of averages, she would eventually get a job?  I raised this objection and she was adamant that God intervened. 

Perhaps, miracles are really just in the eye of the beholder, e.g., there isn't a miracle, really, unless there is someone to claim that a miracle occurred?  Perhaps one of the gifts of the spirit is the ability to claim that God is somehow responsible for occurrences that are really just random events?  Maybe it's just a variation of the god of the gaps argument, e.g., attributing the unexplained, from the miracle believer's point of view, to God?

I don't doubt that in her mind it certainly felt like a miracle. But her efforts just shows that faith without works is dead as the scriptures tell us (James 2: 20)

 

[Marginal Gains]

In terms of the S Fork incident. What makes it “miraculous”? The voice? The finding of the car? If the car had been found and the child rescued without any claims of hearing a voice, as happens, is that a miracle?

Edited May 7, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I don't doubt that in her mind it certainly felt like a miracle. But her efforts just shows that faith without works is dead as the scriptures tell us (James 2: 20)

 

Pretty much everything without hard work turns to chaos according to the laws of entropy. But, yes, she thought it was a miracle even though it seemed that her hard work was what paid off.

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

In terms of the S Fork incident. What makes it “miraculous”? The voice? The finding of the car? If the car had been found and the child rescued without any claims of hearing a voice, as happens, is that a miracle?

Any event, miraculous or not, can be discounted by simply rejecting what the participants said about it.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

In terms of the S Fork incident. What makes it “miraculous”? The voice? The finding of the car? If the car had been found and the child rescued without any claims of hearing a voice, as happens, is that a miracle?

The voice, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The voice, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seeing they could see the Mother, why wouldn’t the officers have been able to see the child regardless of any voice? 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In more than a few well-publicized court cases, I have scratched my head and wondered how a reasonable, reasonably intelligent, reasonably careful jury possibly could reach the conclusion it has in such cases.  (OJ Simpson, anyone?)  

[tangent] Ron Goldman's knuckles were severely bruised, indicating that he was dishing it out bigtime as well as taking it.  OJ's face and body and hands were not correspondingly bruised.  It did not appear the OJ had been in a fight.  Some people think the evidence points to OJ's oldest son, Jason.  OJ may have known and taken the fall for him. See "OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It",  by William Dear.[/tangent]

Edited May 7, 2018 by Eek!

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Eek! said:

[tangent] Ron Goldman's knuckles were severely bruised, indicating that he was dishing it out bigtime as well as taking it.  OJ's face and body and hands were not correspondingly bruised.  It did not appear the OJ had been in a fight.  Some people think the evidence points to OJ's oldest son, Jason.  OJ may have known and taken the fall for him. See "OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It",  by William Dear.[/tangent]

Coroner Testifies No Punches Landed / Wounds on Ronald Goldman's hands were from fall, he says

William Carlsen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, June 13, 1995

One year to the day after Ronald Lyle Goldman was slashed to death along with Nicole Brown Simpson, the Los Angeles County coroner described for the O. J. Simpson jury yesterday how Goldman never struck his killer but was cut several times on his open

hands as he tried desperately to defend himself.

The testimony by Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran was crucial for the prosecution because the defense has said that abrasions on Goldman's knuckles clearly indicated that he landed hard blows on his attacker.

Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran displayed photographs for the jury in February of a stripped-down Simpson that showed no bruises or other marks on the former football star's body shortly after the slayings.

But Lakshmanan said yesterday that the "abrasions and contusions" on the middle knuckles of Goldman's right and left hands were not consistent with blows against a human. They came when Goldman fell backward into a tightly enclosed corner between

two trees, the back of his hands "flailing" against the rough bark and metal bars behind him, the coroner said.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Coroner-Testifies-No-Punches-Landed-Wounds-on-3030438.php

Edited May 7, 2018 by ksfisher

[cinepro]

I've thought a little about the subject of this thread over the past few weeks, and the more I think of it, the more I am convinced that they do make miracles like they used to.  The problem is that they are so common and explainable we hardly recognize them for what they are anymore.  As expressed by sci-fi writer Arthur Clarke, " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. "

Think of all the things we do in our modern life and society, and look at what would have been considered a "miracle" just a few generations ago, let alone centuries ago.

Look at what can be accomplished in medicine.  Travel.  Communication.  How many miracles can the average smart phone facilitate?  In the Book of Moses, we read of Moses being taken up in a vision and being shown the planet.  That was one man.  Now, all of humanity can see the entire planet in a vision.  Look at any of the miracles from the scriptures and ask yourself if we could accomplish the same thing with modern technology? 

Perhaps the reason we see so few miracles being done via supernatural means is because people just don't care anymore.  Technology can give us miracles that are so much more reliable and definable that it's hardly worth it to bother with the seeming randomness of the regular miracles.  We don't want them to "make miracles like they used to."  I would rather fly through the air to any part of the world, instantly communicate with anyone on the planet who has a phone, carry instant access to almost the sum total of all human knowledge in my pocket, have incredible, life-saving medicine available to me within a few miles of almost anywhere I go, and have access to clean water and vast varieties of food at any time of the day. And indoor plumbing.