I agree. Most times we don’t know the mind of God.

It is difficult because we have a hard time hearing his comfort spoken over the deafening sound of silence we think we hear(or don’t hear) from him.

He leaves us to our consequences and the consequences of our situation, but sometimes he does intervene. I say we do not really know or understand the rules of when he does or does not intervene. All we have to go by is learning to understand and follow the spirit as we feel it.

In what way are they more worthy? Have they, or their parents, or their nation’s leaders with adherence to proper principles (economic and otherwise) done what is requisite to have nice homes and three squares a day?

Kyle R. (#15):

Yes. We perceive Him as being indifferent because He is bound by Eternal Law to not give us any more than He can. The Enochian vision of God weeping, and reasons therefore, and Christ’s lament over Jerusalem show us that emotion is not an absent characteristic of Diety. But, Diety’s observance of Eternal Law is established and that law specifies both blessings and cursings. He goes to the utmost limits – because He loves us – to deluge us with His blessings. Because He also loves Eternal Law, He must leave us to our consequences.

Christ is in the midst of his saints, who shall soon see him;
All flesh is corrupted before him;
He has reserved a land of promise for his saints in time and in eternity;
The saints are commanded to be one and esteem each other as brethren;
The saints are to be given power from on high and go forth among all nations;
The Church is commanded to care for the poor and needy, and to seek the riches of eternity.

Parable summary:
The sons serve him obediently. One clothed in robes (the Saints, with the Gospel, the land of promise, etc), the other clothed in rags (other obedient people)…I am just?

Imagine that you are God, about to re-introduce the Gospel to a corrupt world. Who do you give it to? Those who need it most or those who need it least?

You give it to those who need it least because they are more likely to understand and value it. Then you command them to share it.

Yes, he is just because the saints are to be “one” and esteem each other as brethren, go forth (and preach the Gospel) among all nations and care for the poor and needy.

Mondo (#13), In that case the indifference seems to be both an actual emotion of God as well as being a relative perception of ours. I’m not sure I entirely understand what you’ve said but I vaguely sense the relevance and importance of the issue you’re raising.

I will say in response to:
Well, the atonement might be the solution to evil, but I’m not sure it’s always a satisfactory answer to the philosophical and theological problem of evil.
I totally agree. That’s why I didn’t put forth any sort of logical proof for my belief. I just don’t think I have all the facts straight in order to be able to do so.

Also, what you are talking about with God is his “eminence” (or omnipresence/omniscience). How is it that God is eminent to everything and still able to do anything. I just listend to a great speech by Blake Ostler on this, and it’s relation to the atonement.

I’ll get back to you.

Mondo Cool: I’m still not sure myself. I’m of 10 different minds about all of this, so perhaps that is why it comes off so muddled. I think the key to what you are saying is that the robes are not something you or I can really understand fully, in God’s relationship with us. After all, I know a lot of children in the philippines much more worthy of a nice home and three square meals a day than I am, and still they are out there in their t-shirt.

A problem I have with my own “person/situation” distinction is where the person ends and the situation begins. (determinism vs LFW).

Maybe this “indifference” is our view that God should somehow suspend the consequences of eternal law when we haven’t truly done our part to deserve such?