D&C 59:21

[ERCougar]

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

What does this mean? Specifically who are "those who confess not his hand in all things"?

My view of God is a being who set things in motion millions of years ago and sort of let things roll. I think He rarely acts directly but instead acts chiefly through inspiring His children. It's the only way that I can reconcile a loving God with tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, etc. In daily life, I'm not sure He does a lot, but is a hands-off parent.

Am I then one of "those who confess not his hand in all things"? Wouldn't "all things" include the good and the bad? I'm not trying to make a point here; I'm sincerely curious how to interpret this scripture.

[RobinFinderson]

What does this mean? Specifically who are "those who confess not his hand in all things"?

My view of God is a being who set things in motion millions of years ago and sort of let things roll. I think He rarely acts directly but instead acts chiefly through inspiring His children. It's the only way that I can reconcile a loving God with tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, etc. In daily life, I'm not sure He does a lot, but is a hands-off parent.

Am I then one of "those who confess not his hand in all things"? Wouldn't "all things" include the good and the bad? I'm not trying to make a point here; I'm sincerely curious how to interpret this scripture.

I'm so glad I won't ever waste any more time wondering if God is mad at me.

[ERCougar]

I'm so glad I won't ever waste any more time wondering if God is mad at me.

He is.

[wuapinmon]

Maybe this one will get more response than last time.

I have to run, but I'll try and come up with my thoughts late.r

[ERCougar]

Maybe this one will get more response than last time.

I have to run, but I'll try and come up with my thoughts late.r

I don't think my answer from that thread works very well--I think I missed what you were asking. I'd love to hear your thoughts now.

[pellegrino]

What does this mean? Specifically who are "those who confess not his hand in all things"?

My view of God is a being who set things in motion millions of years ago and sort of let things roll. I think He rarely acts directly but instead acts chiefly through inspiring His children. It's the only way that I can reconcile a loving God with tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, etc. In daily life, I'm not sure He does a lot, but is a hands-off parent.

Am I then one of "those who confess not his hand in all things"? Wouldn't "all things" include the good and the bad? I'm not trying to make a point here; I'm sincerely curious how to interpret this scripture.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at a deist conception of God, which is very different from what most LDS believe.

To answer your question, I think you can say that you confess God's hand in all things if you believe that God created/organized all things then you implicitly recognize that without him, nothing of the present world would be possible. Perhaps it's a bit simplistic, but that's one way of approaching it.

ps- I too think that wuap's question of theodicy and this verse is relevant to your question and a potential answer to it.

[ERCougar]

I'm curious as to how you arrived at a deist conception of God, which is very different from what most LDS believe.

To answer your question, I think you can say that you confess God's hand in all things if you believe that God created/organized all things then you implicitly recognize that without him, nothing of the present world would be possible. Perhaps it's a bit simplistic, but that's one way of approaching it.

ps- I too think that wuap's question of theodicy and this verse is relevant to your question and a potential answer to it.

I know a lot of LDS people with that conception of God. You ask them about tragedies and they say that God lets things happen and that it's up to us to make things right--part of our training to become Gods or something.

So are you saying that we are admonished to confess God's hand only in the initial organization/creation of things? Don't you think there are clearer ways of making that point, as in "those who don't confess his Hand in the creation of all things?"

[wuapinmon]

Mark 9:24

Well, I'm like Maimonides, I guess, when it comes to reconciling God and free will. The Deist option reminds me too much of Spinozan pantheism and I think that's (Spinozism) akin to atheism. The, as Babs eloquently put it, cold Lapsarianism of the Calvinists seems to contradict some scripture while reconciling things much better than the convolution of Arminianism. I'm not entirely sure how I reconcile God's intervention in the world, while having to avoid his anger by recognizing his hand in 'all things,' with the problem of theodicy.

This article examines adversity via the book of Job, but I'm not happy with the results.

D&C 122:7 sheds a little light, but not much.
Psalms 39:14 talks about being delivered from afflictions

To the sightless or hearing impaired, [God] sharpens the other senses. … With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him”

(Ensign, May 1996, 25).
—Elder Richard G. Scott


But, in the face of D&C 59:21, I feel that all the explanations I can find on LDS.org are glosses and platitudes. Do I acknowledge God's hand in "all" things, or just "all righteous" things?

[Eddie]

...It's the only way that I can reconcile a loving God with tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, etc. In daily life, I'm not sure He does a lot, but is a hands-off parent.

Who is to say what is "good" and what is "bad"?

Don't get me wrong, I think like any loving parent God doesn't like to see his children suffer. But I think He understands much better than we do what the purpose of this life is. And it wouldn't surprise me if at some point we discover that some of the things we thought were "bad" aren't actually seen that way by him.

I absolutely hate taking my kids in for immunizations, especially when they were really little and would look up at me with tears in their eyes and a look of "how could you let them do this to me?!?" as the nurses stuck them full of needles and I held them down.

I suppose they felt the same way that we do when we sometimes think God must hate us to let certain things occur. When in reality I knew that the pain in the shot was worth it for what pain they would potentially avoid later.

Obviously this doesn't account for free will and people harming other people. But while I think things like hurricanes and tsunamis and earthquakes are horrible things, maybe God views them as something different.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense - and I'm not even sure to what degree I believe it. But it is something that makes me think.

[wuapinmon]

Who is to say what is "good" and what is "bad"?

Don't get me wrong, I think like any loving parent God doesn't like to see his children suffer. But I think He understands much better than we do what the purpose of this life is. And it wouldn't surprise me if at some point we discover that some of the things we thought were "bad" aren't actually seen that way by him.

I absolutely hate taking my kids in for immunizations, especially when they were really little and would look up at me with tears in their eyes and a look of "how could you let them do this to me?!?" as the nurses stuck them full of needles and I held them down.

I suppose they felt the same way that we do when we sometimes think God must hate us to let certain things occur. When in reality I knew that the pain in the shot was worth it for what pain they would potentially avoid later.

Obviously this doesn't account for free will and people harming other people. But while I think things like hurricanes and tsunamis and earthquakes are horrible things, maybe God views them as something different.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense - and I'm not even sure to what degree I believe it. But it is something that makes me think.

But theodicy isn't Acts of God; we're talking about a little girl getting raped and then buried alive. How do we acknowledge his hand.....he's commanded us to, or else suffer his wrath. If we look at how her death might be 'good' somehow for those around her, what about the little girl? How do I acknowledge god's hand in her rape? How do I acknowledge his hand as she slowly suffocated in a plastic bag buried in her neighbor's back yard? How do I acknowledge his hand in the searchers who walked past her grave while looking for her while she was still alive and didn't find her? Did they not pray that morning? Not pray hard enough? Were her parents' prayers not sincere enough?

This is the problem of theodicy as it relates to D&C 59:21.

[wuapinmon]

bump

[Indy Coug]

But theodicy isn't Acts of God; we're talking about a little girl getting raped and then buried alive. How do we acknowledge his hand.....he's commanded us to, or else suffer his wrath. If we look at how her death might be 'good' somehow for those around her, what about the little girl? How do I acknowledge god's hand in her rape? How do I acknowledge his hand as she slowly suffocated in a plastic bag buried in her neighbor's back yard? How do I acknowledge his hand in the searchers who walked past her grave while looking for her while she was still alive and didn't find her? Did they not pray that morning? Not pray hard enough? Were her parents' prayers not sincere enough?

This is the problem of theodicy as it relates to D&C 59:21.

How absurdly literal are you trying to be? As it pertains to this atrocious crime, acknowledging him in all things would be to understand that despite the horrors that sometimes present themselves, that the Atonement is real and that ultimately should provide some measure of solace.

[wuapinmon]

How absurdly literal are you trying to be? As it pertains to this atrocious crime, acknowledging him in all things would be to understand that despite the horrors that sometimes present themselves, that the Atonement is real and that ultimately should provide some measure of solace.

When my bishop read this scripture to me in my PPI in April, he was being literal, as was the SP who probably shared it with him in a training meeting. And I don't think it's absurd to talk about "all things."

[Indy Coug]

When my bishop read this scripture to me in my PPI in April, he was being literal, as was the SP who probably shared it with him in a training meeting. And I don't think it's absurd to talk about "all things."

So you're constrained by your bishop and SP?

[ERCougar]

But theodicy isn't Acts of God; we're talking about a little girl getting raped and then buried alive. How do we acknowledge his hand.....he's commanded us to, or else suffer his wrath. If we look at how her death might be 'good' somehow for those around her, what about the little girl? How do I acknowledge god's hand in her rape? How do I acknowledge his hand as she slowly suffocated in a plastic bag buried in her neighbor's back yard? How do I acknowledge his hand in the searchers who walked past her grave while looking for her while she was still alive and didn't find her? Did they not pray that morning? Not pray hard enough? Were her parents' prayers not sincere enough?

This is the problem of theodicy as it relates to D&C 59:21.

I actually have a harder time explaining away acts of God than I do these types of situations. That's not to make light of what is obviously an awful tragedy, but to me, it shows just how important free agency is to our progression and to God. As much as our heart aches as these kinds of stories, a loving God hurts infinitely more. I can at least see a theoretical benefit to freedom, even if the outcomes are occasionally so outcome.

Why didn't the searchers find her? I don't have a good answer to that.