Did the Almighty arrange for George W. Bush to gain office, and did He set into motion the events that led to the ‘liberation’ of Iraq?
I’d be interested to know how many people honestly believe this and how many think it’s ludicrous.
Does God want the USA in Iraq?
By events that were sent in motion, are you including the attack on the WTC?
oh i refuse to comment on this because it will make me look anti american which i am not…
If God had any interest in politics, the NDP party wouldn’t exist.
So no.
Well Kim, I guess we shouldn’t rule out the possibility that He had a hand in the events at the WTC.
The lord has his reasons for doing things. I can’t help but think that it is entirely possible that Dubya is there for a reason, regardless of how I feel about it.
At the same time, the lord allows us to make our own mistakes, even if is something as big as electing a president.
No.
In answer to Rick’s question, I think it’s ludicrous.
Claiming to have the omniscience required to make this declaration is ludicrous. It’s ludicrous to say “I know God set this in motion” and it’s ludicrous to say “I know God didn’t have anything to do with this.”
Itbugaf, declaring God’s involvement in or position on something does not imply omniscience.
The fact that the our church makes no such declaration in this case illustrates a conundrum: We know what God’s position is on tea and tattoos, but we don’t know what he thinks about much weightier matters like the war. Why is that?
ltbugaf, is that similar to saying ‘I know the church is true’?
…and Will, I do find it odd that the membership knows precisely how many earrings they can wear but there has been no statement about how God views the liberation of Iraq.
mark me down for ludicrous
ok i can’t help it.
like i have said before, the Lord allows things to happen and let us make our own choices. no matter how stupid they may be. sometimes He intervenes, but usually He lets us learn from our own mistakes. or at least sometimes people learn from their own mistakes.
unless of course, He allowed GDB to be eleected because He wanted to teach the US a lesson??
I am not SAYING that’s why. Just bringing up a thought is all.
As tyranny falls and democracy is set into place, the gates will open and the path for missionary work will slowly begin to be set. We are doing the Lord’s work.
Eric, you had me going. For a minute there I thought you were talking about jihad.
Will: The original post didn’t ask what God thinks of the war, but whether God acted to set up President Bush in office or set in motion the events leading to the war.
There is someone authorized to declare whether God did these things, if God chooses to tell us. God speaks on these matters, if he chooses to, through his Prophet.
The reason we don’t know what the Lord did or did not do as far as setting up President Bush or the War is that He has not chosen to give President Hinckley anything to declare on the matter.
The reason we know what the Lord wants us to do in regard to tobacco and tattoos is that the Lord HAS given President Hinckley something to declare on the matter.
So perhaps it isn’t claiming omniscience as it is claiming to know God’s mind and will better than God’s Prophet. The claim is equally ludicrous.
Rick: “is that similar to saying ‘I know the church is true’?”
No. The Lord has already said something very definite on this subject to us, through his Prophets. He’s given everyone the opportunity to obtain a testimony that what the Prophets say on that subject is right. He hasn’t said anything through his Prophets in regard to whether he set any events in motion vis-a-vis President Bush or the Iraq War.
sorry that’s GDB
doing the Lord’s work in Iraq? hmmm….
“As tyranny falls and democracy is set into place, the gates will open and the path for missionary work will slowly begin to be set. We are doing the Lord’s work.”
Because that’s what freedom means … being like America, right?
This is just the first step in an ongoing campaign to make every country believe in the correct way of living. The American way.
i want to be irish
Rick: You seem to be suggesting that Iraqis are not freer without Saddam than they were with him.
I want to be Irish?? Mary bite your tongue!! I know that MUST have been a typo and you REALLY meant to say I want to be French right???
And when did the Lord say anything about tatoos? Did I miss reading that scripture? I really need to stop reading them while watching the West Wing
“And when did the Lord say anything about tatoos?”
When the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve advised us not to have them.
“I seek only to call your attention to that silver thread, small but radiant with hope, shining through the dark tapestry of war—namely, the establishment of a bridgehead, small and frail now; but which somehow, under the mysterious ways of God, will be strengthened, and from which someday shall spring forth a great work affecting for good the lives of large numbers of our Father’s children who live in that part of the world. Of that I have certain faith.â€
Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about the Viet Nam war.
The June 1973 Ensign has an interesting article about the church and Viet Nam, and the role of the US military in establishing the church there.
“I seek only to call your attention to that silver thread, small but radiant with hope, shining through the dark tapestry of war—namely, the establishment of a bridgehead, small and frail now; but which somehow, under the mysterious ways of God, will be strengthened, and from which someday shall spring forth a great work affecting for good the lives of large numbers of our Father’s children who live in that part of the world. Of that I have certain faith.â€
Elder Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about the Viet Nam war. The Ensign from June 1973 has an interesting article about the role of the US military in establishing the church in southeast Asia.
ltbugraf,
Does this mean you also believe the advisory for women to have only one pair of earrings also came from the Lord?
Kim: It’s L-T-B-U-G-A-F
Yes. I believe when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve tell us what we should do, their instructions reflect what the Lord wants them to tell us.
Apologies for the misspelling (for the past, and likely the future) of your nickname.
I see it differently. I honestly do not believe the Lord is concerned with how many earrings a woman wears. Why would he be given his attitude toward the pharisees?
I don’t share your view that President Hinckley is being Pharisaical.
I don’t know why the Lord’s anointed servants told us to do this. I was surpised that they did. The fact is, they still did, and your pretensions to know the mind of God better than they do are not very convincing.
Why are you always so intent on putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about President Hinckley being pharisaical, nor did I profess to know the mind of the Lord.
As always, feel free to respond to my comments, but if you do, be sure it’s my comments to which you respond and not your interpretations of them.
Kim, you obviously DO claim to know the mind of the Lord when you say he’s not interested in something. And since your opinion of what God is interested in seems to conflict with what his Prophets and Apostles have said, it’s obvious you must view your opinion as being superior to theirs. What other inferences could I possibly draw?
First of all, my exact words were: I honestly do not believe the Lord is concerned with how many earrings a woman wears.
I was simply stating my belief, and certainly not starting it as fact as you suppose I did.
“your opinion of what God is interested in seems to conflict with what his Prophets and Apostles have said”
Not really. Why can’t the prophets and apostles say something to which the Lord is indifferent? I am not sure why you seem to portray everything as black or white.
“I never said anything about President Hinckley being pharisaical”
But you did say, in your 9:12 post, that concern over something like earrings is Pharisaical. And since Gordon B. Hinckley is the man who is standing at the Conference Center pulpit and telling women to wear no more than one pair of earrings, he’s concerned about it. So what was I supposed to think?
No I did not. I said given the way the Lord approached Pharisees, why would he concern himself with something like the number of earrings a woman wears.
While there may be similarities to pharisaism and the policy of restricting the number of earrings a person wears, that’s not to say they are the same thing.
By the way, here’s my ALTERNATIVE ANSWER to your question, “Does this mean you also believe the advisory for women to have only one pair of earrings also came from the Lord?”
I don’t care. See D&C 1:38
I suppose this means your interpretation of D&C 1:38 is that everything that comes from the mouth of the prophets and apostles is the same as if it comes from the Lord.
More specifically, their INSTRUCTIONS made in the exercise of their offices and Priesthood keys. Yes, I try to treat those the same as if Christ had told me himself.
And I don’t do a great job at it. I’m glad there’s an Atonement.
Given your comments of late, I am not surprised you take a popular view on this passage.
I, on the other hand, tend to take a more literal interpretation of the passage. That is, I believe it is saying that whether his word is fulfilled through himself or his servants, it is the same thing.
“…you take a popular view on this passage.”
I don’t know whether this means you believe my loyalty to the Prophet, or my determination to follow his instructions and counsel, is somehow motivated by popularity. I hope not.
“I… take a more literal interpretation of the passage.”
I can’t agree that this interpretation is more literal. It’s less literal. You say the Lord is talking about the fulfillment rather than the words–that it doesn’t matter whether his words are fulfilled by him or by a servant. But he says, “by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants,” not “by me or by my servants.” He’s talking about voices. Voices speak words. They seldom do the fulfilling of the words. It’s far more literal, and more intuitive, to say that he’s talking about the words rather than the fulfillment.
Agreed. Restated:
I, on the other hand, tend to take a more literal interpretation of the passage. That is, I believe it is saying that whether his word is fulfilled through his voice or the voice of his servants, it is the same thing.
I still think it’s more reasonable to say that he’s simply talking about whether the WORDS–which is the topic of the passage–come directly from him or from his servants. Not least because there are so few situations in which more words would be the fulfillment of his former words. Usually the fulfillment would be an event or action.
Strictly speaking, the prepositional phrases starting with by must be modifying something, and fulfilled seems like the best candidate. But that’s irrelevant because the scriptures aren’t strict with language, and also because nobody really believes that God’s servants are authoritatively equal to God. Everyone who subscribes to the popular interpretation, including Itbugaf, adds extrascriptural qualifiers to the verse, which disqualifies them from playing the literalness card.
He’s talking not just about words, but about the permanency of his words. He says that they will not pass away like the havens and earth will pass away. He says that all his words will be fulfilled. And he says that the permanency is not dependent on who says it. If he speaks his word directly, or through his servants, they will still be fulfilled.
If anything, this scripture is not saying that everything that comes from the mouth of the general authorities is as if it came from the mouth of the Lord. It’s not that superficial.
When these anointed leaders speak to us, exercising their Priesthood keys and the authority of their offices, and tell us to do something, I think I need to follow their instructions, whether I personally think the instruction came by direct revelation from God or whether I personally think the instruction involved, to one degree or another, the leaders’ own thinking. Hence, the “I don’t care.”
But as I stated before, I DO think that when Prophets and Apostles issue instructions, they don’t do so lightly, and they don’t do so without both seeking and receiving at least some degree of inspiration on the matter. Hence, I do believe the instruction on earrings (no matter how odd it may have seemed to me) came from God, through his servants.
Even if such instructions do depend, in some measure, on the leaders’ own thinking, they are seers–able to see what I cannot see, and therefore able to comprehend that this instruction matters enough to give it in the name of the Lord.
Will: You said, “nobody really believes that God’s servants are authoritatively equal to God.”
I am dumbfounded by your ability to read the mind of every person in the world and come to this conclusion. It’s an astonishing gift.
It’s important to note that the 1st presidency did not claim that the earring and tattoo advice was a commandment from God. The exact word used was “discourages”.
Thank you. Likewise on your ability to discern the process that Apostles and Prophets go through before issuing instructions.
Anyone who can read the Ensign or a press interview with President Hinckley already knows about the process I talked about, so alas, no need for such supernatural powers.
Itbutgaf.. the Lord telling me something and the First Presidency “advising” me something is NOT the same thing