Random Disasters, or Warnings?
Posted by Wade on March 15th, 2006
After the devastating tsunami hit South-East Asia at the end of 2004, I remember hearing a lot of discussion about whether there is a God. Most of the commentary focussed on why, if there is a God, He/it would allow such destruction.
The discussions often came to rest in the idea that there is no God; and if there is, He/it is not involved in the daily lives of humans and has no absolute control over the earth.
Furthermore, I hear people have similar discussions in the devastating wake of hurricane Katrina: “It was just a random act of nature”.
While these conversations go on, I can’t help but think about whether these disasters are part of a grander plan to force people off the proverbial “fence”. Often it takes drastic measures for people to be introspective and humble. And only in this condition do people really seek after, and find, God. In other words, is it possible these disasters are “allowed” by God for the purpose of compelling people into humilty, or to foresake God? Is this plausible?
Elder Eyring specifically linked the Tsunami to a prophecy made by the Prophet in 1832. Section 88 gives a warning. The warning is the “voice of testimony” in the form of waves of the sea “heaving themselves beyond their bounds”.
Could there be any specific reason why God might have chosen to “warn” Malaysia and/or the Gulf Coast?
Once again, not being an expert doesn’t keep me from having an opinion.
Certainly there have been prophesies about the last days that will be filled with all kinds of bad stuff going on. Most of these things are very vague and general. I guess I would probably hold off personally on saying that the Tsunami hit SE Asia because there is a great wickedness there. I am not aware of there being more of a reason to strike that area over many other areas. Same goes for New Orleans.
It would certainly add to this notion if there were more specific warnings. I mean if GBH were to give some specific warning to specific areas including the nature of the disaster. After the fact speculating is not anywhere near as convincing.
In fact, I believe GBH actually said the opposite in the General Conference following these disasters. I’ll have to look that up.
Comment # 1 left by Eric on March 15th, 2006
We can, thankfully, choose how we will think about such things since God doesn’t compel us with a certain knowledge of his involvement in such things.
Despite the scriptural references, I am inclined to reject the “god is punishing us/them” or “god is hitting us over the head” paradigms.
It’s enough for me to consider the random disasters of this life as part and parcel of the overall plan…that we chose to put ourselves in the way of danger and suffering for many reasons related to growth and learning, including:
1. The reminder of our own weaknesses, whether in first person or as observers
2. An opportunity to serve each other
3. An opportunity to learn not to judge others based on external factors…including what challenges they face.
The question about what Tsunami victims may have done or needed to earn this disaster is problematic at best. It requires only a change of pardigm to see that those without such challenges may be the ones who are bing called to repentance.
Comment # 2 left by Watt Mahoun on March 15th, 2006
Watt:
I am in full agreement with your approach.
However, just to play devil’s advocate, I think it is interesting to consider that Malaysia is a source for sex-tourism and the accepted exploitation of children that runs rampant over there. Nearly 15 percent of their GDP is derived from the explicit exploitation of women and children.
Comment # 3 left by Wade on March 15th, 2006
Yeah, I agree that this is heinous. And punishing it with a Tsunami (were that to be what it was) would have the net effect of:
1. Not putting an end to the exploitation of children, which it hasn’t–perhaps it has increased it?
2. Being similar to dropping an H-bomb on a city to punish its crimes—way too much indiscriminant collatoral damage for there to be justice or wisdom in it.
Just to join the devils advocate team…I wonder how much of the US GDP is derived from building weapons of war and/or mass-destruction? Perhaps not 15%, but what ever it is…it’s probably vastly greater than the entire GDP of Malaysia.
Comment # 4 left by Watt Mahoun on March 15th, 2006
God has terrible aim. Apparently angry at New Orleans’ debauchery he wiped out the poor ghettos and left the French Quarter intact.
Comment # 5 left by Ronan on March 16th, 2006
Ronan:
God has terrible aim.
What, then, is your position here? Do you think God was powerless to prevent the “poor ghettos” from being wiped out? If not, then he clearly allowed it to happen. If he allowed it to happen, there is a reason for it. Is there not?
Now, I’m not saying Katrina was a punishment for any particular reason - or that it was a punishment at all. But, if we ascribe to God’s omnipotence, we must reconcile the fact that He allowed it to happen. If He didn’t allow it to happen, it is because He didn’t have to power to stop it, or He didn’t want to stop it. If He didn’t want to stop it, I’m assuming there is a reason.
Comment # 6 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
Wade:
I found the talk I was referring to, it was ‘If ye are prepared te shall not Fear’ and comes from the Nov. 2005 Ensign. In the talk he gives this:
‘Now, I do not say, and I repeat emphatically that I do not say or infer, that what has happened is the punishment of the Lord. Many good people, including some of our faithful Latter-day Saints, are among those who have suffered. Having said this, I do not hesitate to say that this old world is no stranger to calamities and catastrophes. Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes that have come to pass and are yet to come to pass.’
I guess I feel that God allows these things to happen usually, more so than causes them. I believe we feel that death is a much bigger deal than God does.
Comment # 7 left by Eric on March 16th, 2006
I think that if the recent Hurricanes/Tsunamis are meant as some kind of “sign”, I don’t think they are meant to specifically punish those who are in these disasters. What we might be seeing is a wake up call to the world.
Or, perhaps I’m wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/
Comment # 8 left by Ian on March 16th, 2006
I think the key is not to see God’s action/inaction in any given case as a sign of his will to punish/remind/coerce/etc …I think it’s more like the Prodigal son scenario, where the Father allows the son to go off into the world as a wise and caring parent…knowing that there likely will be trouble, but not interfering.
The idea that he could/should interfere is not the point of the story…nor do I think that we place any causality of consequence on the father.
I think the world is more like an independant system that both gods and men can influence…it’s just that men are more likely to get screwed in the process.
IOW…I think that if god were to interfere with the natural laws of this world…he may be crossing the border into one of those things that would cause him to cease being god.
Rambling. incoherent. But these are my thoughts.
Comment # 9 left by Watt Mahoun on March 16th, 2006
Well, consider this: We know that calamities will increase as the second coming draws nigh.
Is that a result of God’s action (i.e., he waved his wand and Katrina formed), the result of natural processes that God set in place millions… err billions of years ago (i.e., the butterfly effect) that were intended to eventually culminate in catastrophic destruction or the result of the actions of mankind (affecting the global warming process etc…)- actions which God knew woudl coincide with our being ripe for cleansing?
Comment # 10 left by Ryan on March 16th, 2006
ugh. my last comment was poorly written. If it helps, I was trying to present 3 potential causes of a catastrophic millenium
Comment # 11 left by Ryan on March 16th, 2006
I’m torn between two perspectives:
Watt is persuasive in his approach of notplac[ing] any causality of consequence on the father; on the other hand, Eric’s quotation of President Hinckley gives interesting insight and should cause us to contemplate the issue deeper.
Specifically, President Hinckley said, “Those of us who read and believe the scriptures are aware of the warnings of prophets concerning catastrophes…”
What I’m saying here is that I fall within the camp the Prophet is talking about: I believe DC 88:88. Wrath and indignation is to come upon people! Shortly thereafter this warning comes a description of that wrath. The specific description just so happens to be that of waves “heaving themselves beyond their bounds”.
I understand that not every person affected/killed/injured by these disasters is being punished. In fact, this is what I think the Prophet was trying to convey in his message. But he then said in the same breath that he does not hesitate to say that the world is prone to catastrophe; and that these catastrophic events are directly tied to prophetic “warning”.
Here, I have linked what I believe to be a prophetic warning about catastrophe to God’s “wrath and indignation”.
Comment # 12 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
Ryan:
It’s not a “wand”, it’s a scepter.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
Wade,
I don’t think the Malaysia / sex tourism connection really works. After all, it’s not Malaysia that’s the real wrongdoer.
Rather, the problem exists because there are a number of wealthy westerners who use and exploit Malaysian kids. The Malaysian kids themselves are desperately poor and essentially powerless.
And you’re telling me that God’s response to this situation is to send a wave to kill the poor and powerless Malaysian kids, while doing nothing about the rich western tourists who are the source of the problem? Talk about blaming the victim!
Comment # 14 left by Kaimi on March 16th, 2006
Kaimi:
After all, it’s not Malaysia that’s the real wrongdoer.
I concur and dissent.
True, if it weren’t for the evils of western exploitation, there would be no exploitation.
However, you are not being candid in your assesment of who the “real” wrongdoers are. Innocent children are often sold by their parents to traffickers or loaned to brothels in exchange for money. A U.S. embassy reports: “In some parts of Asia, families who traditionally have wished for sons to work for the family now hope to have girl children to sell, since their earning potential is greater.”
Moreover, Malay men make up the largest number of sex tourists in the south of Thailand.
Thus, while I don’t deny western perpetrators drive the evil, neither do I ignore the reality that the issue is dual-sided.
Also, you’ll notice that I’m only speculating and trying to better understand the reasons for certain phenomena. I don’t think the numerous victims are evil or deserving of death etc.
Comment # 15 left by Wade on March 16th, 2006
Wade:
SLC sits on a fair-to-meddlin’-sized earthquake fault. It’s entirely plausible that should that fault snap (and scienists says it’s due) hundreds to thousands of people will die or be injured.
I can promise you that it will be standard discourse in Baptist congregations that God sent the quake to Utah as a wake-up call to the Mormons that they need to stop following that “other Jesus” and be born again. They’ll mention depression rates, child abuse rates, Brian David Mitchell, Ted Bundy, salamanders, etc.
Or it could just be that the pressures in the earth gave way and we were silly enough to build a city right on top of the weakest points.
Malaysia got hit because it’s where the sub-marine fault was and the pressures finally got too great. New Orleans, like most of the Southern States, is susceptible to major hurricanes.
I highly doubt God sits in heaven conjuring up natural disasters with the purpose of punishing his children. And if he were, I think we could have counted on his called and chosen servant to have said as much. Pres. Hinckley went to great lengths to say that wasn’t the case.
Comment # 16 left by Chad too on March 17th, 2006
I highly doubt God sits in heaven conjuring up natural disasters with the purpose of punishing his children.
I have already said that I don’t necessarily believe he does this either.
But still, I think you are ignoring scripture. How do you reconcile DC 88:88-89 with your belief about earthquakes?
Comment # 17 left by Wade on March 17th, 2006
You’ve connected two things together that aren’t necessarily connected. 88 says there will be wrath and indignation. 89 says there will be earthquakes but it doesn’t say the earthquakes are the wrath. Especially read in light of verse 90 it seems more of a prophecy that these things are going to happen rather than a pronouncement that earthquakes are necessarily the wrath of the Lord.
And I also believe Pres. Hinckley, a modern-day Prophet, when he says that these things were not the punishment of the Lord.
Comment # 18 left by Chad Too on March 17th, 2006