Why is God punishing his Prophet with Alzheimer's?

[_businessman05]

Let's elaborate on KevinSims point. The Father did not torture his Son, the Romans through the Jews did that. However, if it was not done by the Romans, Christ would have to give up his life for the Resurrection in some way. Since Adam and Eve, most prophets and believers have had to suffer through this mortal coil. I am sure this is known already and the polygamy dude is going for tongue and cheek but so often suffering in this life is used as an excuse to disbelieve in God. In reality, most narratives in the Judeo-Christian belief involve mortal suffering as a necessary part of our journey to salvation. Even non-Christian religions embrace this fact. So, if we want God and peace in our lives, we don't necessarily need to be happy about it but accept it as the reality and not kick against it.

[_ludwigm]

... who is the doctor that diagnosed Thomas Monson with Alzheimer's? ...

see врачи-вредители

Soviet Ukaz awarding Lidiya Timashuk the Order of Lenin for "unmasking killer doctors".
January 20, 1953: (It was revoked after Stalin's death later that year.)

[_Drifting]

I just read the news that the only living prophet on the face of the earth has Alzheimer's.

God is a sick bastard.

Polygamy-Porter, before you go using unwarranted adjectives on God, who is the doctor that diagnosed Thomas Monson with Alzheimer's?

And even if it were to turn out that Monson has Alzheimer's, God has an extremely complex job; the world is an extremely complex place; God makes an awful lot of crucial decisions every day. Are you saying that keeping Monson from contracting Alzheimer's should be enough of a priority for God for Him to make sure Monson doesn't get it?

Alzheimer's is a nasty way to die, but crucifixion is also a nasty way to die. If it were to turn out that Monson has Alzheimer's, God wouldn't be punishing him any more than God punished Jesus Christ.

Why didn't the Priesthood Blessing or name on the Temple prayer roll thing work? Or do you think the Apostles haven't bothered trying those?

[_Drifting]

Let's elaborate on KevinSims point. The Father did not torture his Son, the Romans through the Jews did that. However, if it was not done by the Romans, Christ would have to give up his life for the Resurrection in some way. Since Adam and Eve, most prophets and believers have had to suffer through this mortal coil. I am sure this is known already and the polygamy dude is going for tongue and cheek but so often suffering in this life is used as an excuse to disbelieve in God. In reality, most narratives in the Judeo-Christian belief involve mortal suffering as a necessary part of our journey to salvation. Even non-Christian religions embrace this fact. So, if we want God and peace in our lives, we don't necessarily need to be happy about it but accept it as the reality and not kick against it.

That's right, Mormonism teaches that hardship and suffering are what God wants us to experience. In which Monson should recognise that his Alzheimer's is all just part of the plan. No biggy.

In reality you have to decide which one of these beliefs you can best live with:
1. God exists but is powerless to intervene with the physicality of this life.
2. God exists but picks and chooses when to intervene with the physicality of this life.
3. God doesn't exist.

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion, I agree with you 100%. There's a huge difference between the ideas behind the two different deities.

If you agree, you agree. Your god is more akin to a somewhat powerful alien found in scifi literature. But, like much bad scifi literature, your god's abilities still seem to expand and contract as based on narrative convenience rather than coherency.

If the answers to those two questions are both yes, then who would a conscientious person be more likely to worship, a weak deity who was nonetheless good, or a much stronger deity who is demonstrably evil?

The god of Mormon theology has all manner of ostensibly evil acts attributed to it and an inexplicable pattern of interference and noninterference that invokes the problem of evil just the same. Presumably, if you have some answer to the argument from evil, it will have to extend beyond pleading to God's weakness and in all likelihood would be available to believers in classical theism.