Monson uses 9/11 to berate Americans

[_stemelbow]

Oh, your point is that nobody, including yourself, has an answer? That is indeed an important thing to ponder.

I would also like to propose that this post of mine that you are currently reading is in the English language, and that I posted it on the internet. I just wanted to contribute my insights to the discussion.

So why didn't you hassle those who were posting what God didn't do for the victimes when in fact they didn't know whether God did something or has something in store to make up for hte suffering? Oh wait, i get it, you just want to complain about me.

Except that you never established that there is any such thing as "the LDS concept," in the absence of any indicia that Mormonism has anything unique, useful, or insightful to say about the problem of evil.

I disagree with your assessment. Oh well, as I said, i can expect you to disagree.

So I must be a mean person because I don't find vacuous banter and banal platitudes to be profound and of deep metaphysical import?

Is that it?

Oh stop with your persecution complex. I didn't say you were a mean person. Stop pouting. my goodness...

[_Buffalo]

So why didn't you hassle those who were posting what God didn't do for the victimes when in fact they didn't know whether God did something or has something in store to make up for hte suffering? Oh wait, i get it, you just want to complain about me.

Stem, I don't think you've quite grasped yet why an argument from ignorance is fallacious.

[_Hoops]

I thin Hoops was suggesting with the "innocent of what" comment that all human beings, including those that secular folks would commonly call "innocent" are actually guilty in God's eyes, being born sinful, wretched creatures in need of a cosmic ritual bloody sacrifice to atone for their sinfulness and bring them back into God's presence. It's an orthodox Christian position that all human beings are fallen and condemned to eternal death by operation of eternal law. Christians don't accept the notion that anyone is innocent. This is one way they can justify their God's apparent indifference to the slaughter of thousands--the folks who died weren't innocent at all from a Christian point of view because no one is innocent. It's just another of the sick and twisted doctrines taught by Christianity.

No, I was suggesting that for one to conclude that God is responsible for not stepping in to stop such a crime one must first establish under what circumstances this will be allowed. I suspect, when pushed, there is no circumstance.

I'll ignore how you've misrepresented the orthodox Christian position. It's so commonplace here that it just doesn't matte much of the time.

[_Mad Viking]

The steadiness that he's speaking about is the steadiness the believers look to and rely on...

Which is manifested how exactly? You're just repeating the empty platitude that Monson gave. You (and Monson) say that people look to god for steadiness, but how does he deliver said steadiness? I suspect that what you (and Monson) really mean is that increasing their faith after such an event may ease their anxiety about the FACT that the world apperas to be is a rough place where people do bad stuff to each other and there is no higher power that will intervene on their behalf. They increase their faith and tell themselves that there really is a higher power despite his inability/unwillingness to stabilize anything.

[_jon]

I've posted this before but I think it's appropriate for the discussion.

One of these options must be true:
1. There is no God
2. God is powerless to intervene physically in this world
3. God picks and chooses when He intervenes in this world

[_Mad Viking]

I thin Hoops was suggesting with the "innocent of what" comment that all human beings, including those that secular folks would commonly call "innocent" are actually guilty in God's eyes, being born sinful, wretched creatures in need of a cosmic ritual bloody sacrifice to atone for their sinfulness and bring them back into God's presence. It's an orthodox Christian position that all human beings are fallen and condemned to eternal death by operation of eternal law. Christians don't accept the notion that anyone is innocent. This is one way they can justify their God's apparent indifference to the slaughter of thousands--the folks who died weren't innocent at all from a Christian point of view because no one is innocent. It's just another of the sick and twisted doctrines taught by Christianity.

Or maybe Hoops thinks that the Allah worshipped by these people is really the guy in charge and that these people were doing his bidding by killing the american sinners? Which is to say that his christian god feels the same way about us that these terrorists' god does.

[_consiglieri]

I was suggesting that for one to conclude that God is responsible for not stepping in to stop such a crime one must first establish under what circumstances this will be allowed.

Under what circumstances this will be allowed by WHOM?

I thought we were talking about God, here . . .

[_Hoops]

Under what circumstances this will be allowed by WHOM?

I thought we were talking about God, here . . .

I'd begin with those who make this accusation against God.

[_consiglieri]

Addressing 9/11 is not an easy thing from a religious perspective.

I am sure President Monson did his best, but it came across as somewhat shallow.

I think it is probably the best we can expect when a general conference talk is published in a newspaper.

The pap always seems to go over so well in April and October; why should September be any different? It is possible President Monson shares something with President Obama (and doubtless many other presidents)--that being they are so surrounded with yes-men and uh-huh-women that they have no real idea how they are perceived by others beyond the beltway.

If someone he trusted were candid with him, perhaps he could improve.

If I had written the article, I think I would have started with the Book of Mormon story about the sons of Mosiah, and how their response to the barbaric "other" who killed Nephites whenever they could catch them was not to match them eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, but to preach the gospel to them and serve them in love and submission. (I would make sure that word, "submission," was included.)

I would then add that, as a result of their missionary efforts, a group of the "other" were so powerfully converted to the Lord that when they were attacked by their enraged kindred, they bowed down and allowed themselves to be killed rather than defend themselves.

Then I would conclude with how the result was that many more were converted to Christ through their example of selfless pacificity.

This chain of three stories in the Book of Mormon is powerful and would have formed the main body of my editorial.

It would have presented to the world the Book of Mormon as a book to be reckoned with; and a book with a message fitted for our time.

But then, President Monson never asked for my opinion . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_sethpayne]

I found nothing offensive about Monson's piece.

Neither did I. It was an expression of faith and a message of finding hope in the face of tragedy.

Kudos to Pres. Monson.