Does God Meddle with Free Will?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by Snow

Here's the definition. Killing = when you kill someone. It's not rocket science. It's not a mystery. It's when you kill someone. That's it.

To your first point - God wasn't "calling home" anyone. He was, according to the OT, turning up the heat on Pharaoh, one ill upon another, escalating the violence, up to and including killing innocent people.

We know from modern revelation how God operates: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

To be clear, the scripture says NO power. It's all-incusive.

So ask yourself - is sending horrific plagues and killing innocent children (because the king is bad) an act of gentleness. meekness and love unfeigned?

No, no it's not. It's an act of violence and horror. These days we call it terrorism.

Joseph F. Smith said: "It is a very difficult matter to say anything at a time of sorrow and bereavement like the present that will give immediate relief to the sorrowing hearts of those who mourn. Such griefs can only be fully relieved by the lapse of time and the influence of the good spirit upon the hearts of those that mourn, by which they can obtain comfort and satisfaction in their hopes of the future. … I have learned that there are a great many things which are far worse than death. With my present feelings and views and the understanding that I have of life and death I would far rather follow every child I have to the grave in their innocence and purity, than to see them grow up to man and womanhood and degrade themselves by the pernicious practices of the world, forget the Gospel, forget God and the plan of life and salvation, and turn away from the only hope of eternal reward and exaltation in the world to come."

Bringing a child back home who is innocent and fully grown spiritually, God knowing that individual does not need to be exposed to the railings of Satan here, is an act of love. I don't know why you don't see it that way, Joseph F. Smith saw a child's death as a compassionate thing.

And, Why are you trying to apply rules pertaining to the priesthood authority given to men on God. How much of Gods power you think is bestowed to priesthood holders here? 10%?, 5%?, 0.00000001%? It certainly isn't 100%. It has that potential sure, but the authority given to men is a small portion of Gods. As when men are responsible with small areas of dominion, later they can be responsible for greater things. The quote you give about the nature of the priesthood pertains to the authority of the priesthood given to men and is preceded by the concern about unrighteous dominion. It is the rules given to users of a small portion of Gods power and therefore cannot be related to one who has all the authority. What portion of Gods righteous dominion are you trying to police?

The priesthood power given to men is but a subset of all of Gods priesthood power. Or are you trying to equate earthly priesthood dominion to God's dominion? I hope not. That is like saying the Sheriff has to follow the rules given to the Deputy. The priesthood is to act righteously in the name of God, it is not to act like a God. There is a difference! and that is why those rules are given to men (not God), to not claim dominion over that which was not given. I don't understand this reverse reasoning. What dominion did God claim that was not His? I hope you are not saying that God does not have claim to my life, your life or anyone's life or anything in this world for that matter. Everything in this world is His dominion including life and death. I wouldn't want to try to limit God's dominion or apply rules given to a subset of His power to the whole, even in rhetoric.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

So, let's look at the Book of Mormon...When Christ was killed on the cross, the Earth was made to rent and twain in the BoM area. Upheavels and massive geological occurances. Many many people were killed in this time. Others were essentially terrorized by their survival. How could God do this?

Based on your answer to bible stories, it is allegorical. It did not really happen. Or, it is mistranslated. However, we are told the Book of Mormon is the most correct and properly translated scriptures. How is it possible for us to not apply the same standard of explaining Heavenly Father to the BoM?

1. You aren't being very creative. One could argue that the natural evil (earthquakes and such) was a natural outcome of the forces of nature when you kill God and interrupt the animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter.

Remember, one of the great heros of the BoM snuck into an enemy camp and murdered the opposing general in his sleep. He did not kill him in battle. Do these stories cause the same problems for you as the same types of stories in the bible?

Doesn't cause me much heartburn. The opposing general was part and parcel of the conflict and supposedly had guilt that made his fate a just one. I'm not a pacifist.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Snow

Doesn't cause me much heartburn. The opposing general was part and parcel of the conflict and supposedly had guilt that made his fate a just one. I'm not a pacifist.

So, as long as they are guilty, it is okay. Well, Pharoah and his people were guilty of persecuting God's chosen people. Laban was guilty of trying to kill Nephi and his brothers, of stealing from them, and of refusing to hand over the books containing genealogies and the word of God, when it was Heavenly Fathers will. I could continue, but, the point is, the people in most of these stories were guilty as a people. So, guilt...Check.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Well, Pharoah and his people were guilty of persecuting God's chosen people.

Why the nerve of those infernal infants and toddlers. The got what they had coming. Why not dig em up and kill em 2nd time just so they know it's serious.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Snow

Why the nerve of those infernal infants and toddlers. The got what they had coming. Why not dig em up and kill em 2nd time just so they know it's serious.

Other than the movie with Charleton Heston, can you please provide proof that infants and toddlers were killed? I believe someone has already suggested that First Born did not refer to them, but rather to the 'ritz' class of citizens.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Other than the movie with Charleton Heston, can you please provide proof that infants and toddlers were killed? I believe someone has already suggested that First Born did not refer to them, but rather to the 'ritz' class of citizens.

Now you just sound defeated and dejected Gatorman. Am I supposed to take that as a serious challenge? Someone suggested that "firstborn" (original word = rwkb, transliterated word = B@kowr; definition = firstborn, of men and women, of animals) and therefore you expect me to bear the burden to prove that the word means something other than what it is? Surely you can put on a brave face and do better than that.

btw, have you read the Book of Exodus and seen how the Torah author uses the word "rwkb?" Are you suggesting that he is also referring to the 'ritz' class of cattle, instead of the firstborn as the text says?

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Snow

Now you just sound defeated and dejected Gatorman. Am I supposed to take that as a serious challenge? Someone suggested that "firstborn" (original word = rwkb, transliterated word = B@kowr; definition = firstborn, of men and women) and therefore you expect me to bear the burden to prove that the word means something other than what it is? Surely you can put on a brave face and do better than that.

No Snow. You can take it however you want. I understand your position, I disagree with it, and I know where I am. I am comfortable with where I am and I know I have the faith necessary to get where I need to be.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by Snow

One could argue that the natural evil (earthquakes and such) was a natural outcome of the forces of nature when you kill God and interrupt the animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter.

If Christ's death was enough to create massive natural disasters on the other side of the globe, why wasn't the Old World utterly destroyed?

Besides that, this explanation seems to imply that Christ lost some degree of control, as it were, over the elements when He died. If that's the case, why were the righteous the ones who were spared? 3 Nephi 9:13 clearly states that those who survived the calamities were spared because they were more righteous than the ones who were killed. So, did God lose all control, or just part? If He didn't lose all control, why would He allow innocent infants to be killed along with the wicked (we can assume that there were children under the age of accountability in the destroyed cities)?

Also, if Christ were the animating force of the Earth, what about when He was an infant Himself, still growing and maturing? Did His intellectual and physical maturity have no bearing on the "animating force of his omnipotence intertwined with all matter", but His death did?

This explanation seems to have too many holes.

[rameumptom]

I'm closing this thread. I'm getting tired of the tension on such discussions, which are no longer discussions but attacks.