"28 Therefore they hushed their fears, and began to cry unto the Lord that he would soften the hearts of the Lamanites, that they would spare them, and their wives, and their children.
29 And it came to pass that the Lord did soften the hearts of the Lamanites..."
We discussed the concept of free agency in Priest's quorum yesterday and I wanted to jump on them with this question.
According to the Plan of Salvation, Satan's plan disregarded free agency, whilst Christ's promoted it. How then, according to this passage and many others, does god's meddling fall in line with the Plan of Salvation? Doesn't this contradict the concept of free-agency? If god can come down and change people's minds based on the desires of his 'chosen people,' then there really isn't free agency, is there?
dr5 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the church really believed in free agency they > wouldn't devote so much money/time/effort to > oppose gay marriage.
If you serve a mission then I predict you'll hate it. If you go to BYU then I predict you'll hate it. If I were you I'd make sure you do whatever is needed to (1) make sure you don't go to BYU or any church college, (2) don't go on a mission.
Interestingly, and in contradiction to examples in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was not comfortable with the idea of God's influencing the "free agency" of Bible characters--at least when it came to the imposition of negative attitudes.
The King James Bible reads:
"And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses." (Old Testament | Exodus 9:12)
The Joseph Smith Translation of that verse indicates:
"And Pharaoh hardened his heart...."
And there are many more examples where Smith removed God's negative influence and replaced it with a character's exercising his own free will.
Darth Packer took away our free agency and made it "moral agency". He doesn't believe we have free will and wants to curtail our choices.
Yes, JS taught "teach them the correct principles and let the choose for themselves", but the church infantilizes people and makes the choices for them or punishes them severely for not making the "right ones".
Why would the Lord harden the heart of Pharoah, only to destroy him for his chosen peoples benefit? Was it to show them his power? If the Old Testament God was benevolent, he could have produced miracles that would have made slavery unneeded, or he could show his power by any number of good ways.
You could point out the Old Testament passages where the smell of the burnt offerings pleased the Lord and He turned away his wrath...mmm, veal...listen dudes I'm sorry...
Anyway, the church teaches Agency, and it used to teach Free Agency, and it teaches against the notion of predestination but when it also teaches that God punishes the hearts that he's hardened or blesses the hearts that he's softened, then the plan of salvation means nothing. I mean, if God saves us for our repentance, how can our ability to repent depend on whether He hardens or softens our hearts?
If that is the case, then we are no more than the people in Greek mythology where the gods moved us around like chess peices.
However, your teacher could wiggle out of this by stating that the Lamanites understood Gods dealings with men by the Old Testament teachings that they took with them. Thus, they could conceive of God changing their hearts. To which you can ask back- then why does he call on us to repent if her could undo that by a simple hardening of my heart in order to bless my enemy?
Not even that makes sense, it's all mental gymnastics. I constantly hear how we allegedly "chose our lives and we knew our future actions." Which doesn't make any sense either.
If we know the answers to the test already, then it's moot isn't it?
Just an FYI, these, to me, are rhetorical questions. I'm just trying to vent the daily doses of nonsense.