The problem of evil

[TAO]

If temptation was unnecessary for a free-will environment, then the promptings of the Holy Ghost would be equally unnecessary. I thought that Lehi, in 2 Nephi 2, made this fairly clear.

Very true, they would be. So my question stands, why did God allow us to be tempted but to help us become better?

[TAO]

It would be contrary to the nature of God not to test us in mortality because there would be no probationary state, which is part of the eternal chain of existence (See Alma Chapter 32, noting verse 13 in particular and in alignment with Moses 1:39). If He would cease to exist, then so would we and our agency (2 Nephi 2: 11-14).

You need to make this statement more clear. Please rephrase it.

2 Nephi 2: 15, 16 says,

[paulpatter]

Our eternal progress is integral to our relationship with God, and it is not based on negotiation or transaction (on His part at least), but on love and agency.

What, then, did you mean when you wrote in Post 81: "We enter this mortal state on the terms we arranged with God pre-mortally in alignment with [our] agency. We agreed on how our mortality and its tests would be structured"? God knows each of us individually; consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that we individually "arranged" our mortal experience with God consistent with our individual agency. That suggests that we did not enter mortality on an equal footing; some pre-mortals were clearly favored over others, as we learn in Abraham.

: The CFR for "We agreed on how our mortality and its tests would be structured"? is Abraham 3:27 and Moses 4:2, Christ being the pattern for the rest of those entering mortality.

Christ's "pattern" was unique. . .absolutely without parallel. You cannot inductively and credibly cite it as precedent-setting on the basis of a single sample. Did any of us ever say--contemplating the horror of the Roman cross--anything remotely comparable to "Thy will be done"?

: The descriptive list of spiritual gifts in D&C 46 is not a competitive comparison (and not comprehensive at that) of which gifts are greater or lesser. Some will assign an eternal value to one gift over another, but in reality each one is

[CV75]

You need to make this statement more clear. Please rephrase it.

While my responses may not be clear, I do try to tie them back to the following guiding principles, and hopefully this might resolve some perceived disagreement:

Agency is an eternal principle (D& 93 30, 31). God is eternal (D& 20:17). We are co-eternal with God (D&C 93:29). We possess agency in every form we can exist in (pre-mortal--D&C 29:36; Edenic and mortal

[CV75]

the hard truth is that it often works out that way. Sometimes what is left unsaid is more revealing than what is said.

With the Redemption in place, negotiation and transaction are very different from God and His children taking things at face value to align and covenant in love. Please see the post above for other clarifications.

Foreordaining does not equate to better opportunities for eternal salvation irrespective of agency (D&C 95:5; 121:34

[stemelbow]

This thread was created to discuss a problem with classical/traditional/maintream Christianity as seen from the LDS perspective. I had hoped we could get some participants who are not LDS to engage the topic. I see some non-LDS did speak up but did not address the argument, nor attempt to engage the topic. 'Tis a shame. I feel it would be interesting.

If the intended purpose does not come about, then I suppose quibbling about some minor points which seem to amount to different LDS folks talking past each other is as good a use for it as any. More power to ya'all.

I'm pretty much to adding a bump in case we can get some real interesting discourse in here.

love,

stem

[oceancoast]

No... God is the giver of agency. His creation can choose to use it for good or evil. I don't see an issue here.

Issue exists with traditional paradoxical Christian belief of ex-Nihlo.

[TAO]

While my responses may not be clear, I do try to tie them back to the following guiding principles, and hopefully this might resolve some perceived disagreement:

Sounds cool. I don't mean to be contentious or angry =).

The appearance of weakness, temptation and sin in the pre-mortal and mortal states is not a function of God

[paulpatter]

With the Redemption in place, negotiation and transaction are very different from God and His children taking things at face value to align and covenant in love. Please see the post above for other clarifications.

Foreordaining does not equate to better opportunities for eternal salvation irrespective of agency (D&C 95:5; 121:34

[staccato]

This thread was created to discuss a problem with classical/traditional/maintream Christianity as seen from the LDS perspective. I had hoped we could get some participants who are not LDS to engage the topic. I see some non-LDS did speak up but did not address the argument, nor attempt to engage the topic. 'Tis a shame. I feel it would be interesting.

If the intended purpose does not come about, then I suppose quibbling about some minor points which seem to amount to different LDS folks talking past each other is as good a use for it as any. More power to ya'all.

I'm pretty much to adding a bump in case we can get some real interesting discourse in here.

love,

stem

Sorry, Stemelbow. I cannot argue with your OP. This used to be my sig line here, a quote by Epicurus:

[paulpatter]

. . . . Foreordaining does not equate to better opportunities for eternal salvation irrespective of agency (D&C 95:5; 121:34

[staccato]

Your second sentence suggests, again, that characteristics that affect one's conduct in mortality ("humility and pride") and hence one's status in post-mortality are inborn and thus vary from individual to individual. Upshot: Some intelligences have been "commissioned" to succeed in mortality--and beyond--and others have not.

Agreed, Paul. And at this juncture, you wonder what God's point is for tossing people into the earth-zone with knowledge they will fail but he tosses them anyway, wielding their foregone conclusion existence with a cruciatus curse.

[LeSellers]

you wonder what God's point is for tossing people into the earth-zone with knowledge they will fail but he tosses them anyway,

Here's my take on it (which comes as a huge surprise, I'm sure, given this is my post on the subject, hmmm).

The Law of Eternal Progression includes our past as well as our future. No matter what else happens to us, we are better off now (as physical beings) than we were as spirit children in pre-mortality. We were better off as spirit children than we were as mere intelligences. That's the definition of "progression", insofar as I understand the term.

Furthermore, it is impossible for God to "uninspiritate" us. We have been born spiritually and there's no going back. Did Father know, before He and Mother gave us our spirit bodies, that any specific one of us would fail? I don't know, but I believe not. Just as we came to this earth as we became prepared for this existence, I believe we advanced as intelligences until the point that we were ready (whatever that may mean) to become spirits in Father's family. Whatever intelligence was ready, was "inspiritated".

We also know that, with the possible exception of Sons of Perdition (a name of Satan), we will all be resurrected with spiritual and physical bodies that will be better than those we have now. We will be saved into a kingdom of glory, even those of us who fail to attain exaltation.

So, while it is not exaltation for those who fail, it is an advance, we will all be better off than we are now, than we were, and that we were before then.

Every reasonable parent, and our Father and Mother are no exception, wants the best for his child. Father wants the best for us, and this earth-zone, with its tribulations, its trials, its failures, is the means by which we will gain that improvement. Recall that Satan didn't get to come here, and that he will not have a body of flesh and bone as we will have.

(That's one of the reasons he hates us so, and why it is his goal to have one of use cede control of our bodies to him by the use of drugs or otherwise, and why he always wins whenever one of us sins and fails to repent: even if we will not be in his hell: he blocked one of us from obtaining immortality and eternal life.)

Lehi

[staccato]

Here's my take on it (which comes as a huge surprise, I'm sure, given this is my post on the subject, hmmm).

The Law of Eternal Progression includes our past as well as our future. No matter what else happens to us, we are better off now (as physical beings) than we were as spirit children in pre-mortality. We were better off as spirit children than we were as mere intelligences. That's the definition of "progression", insofar as I understand the term.

Furthermore, it is impossible for God to "uninspiritate" us. We have been born spiritually and there's no going back. Did Father know, before He and Mother gave us our spirit bodies, that any specific one of us would fail? I don't know, but I believe not. Just as we came to this earth as we became prepared for this existence, I believe we advanced as intelligences until the point that we were ready (whatever that may mean) to become spirits in Father's family. Whatever intelligence was ready, was "inspiritated".

We also know that, with the possible exception of Sons of Perdition (a name of Satan), we will all be resurrected with spiritual and physical bodies that will be better than those we have now. We will be saved into a kingdom of glory, even those of us who fail to attain exaltation.

So, while it is not exaltation for those who fail, it is an advance, we will all be better off than we are now, than we were, and that we were before then.

Every reasonable parent, and our Father and Mother are no exception, wants the best for his child. Father wants the best for us, and this earth-zone, with its tribulations, its trials, its failures, is the means by which we will gain that improvement. Recall that Satan didn't get to come here, and that he will not have a body of flesh and bone as we will have.

(That's one of the reasons he hates us so, and why it is his goal to have one of use cede control of our bodies to him by the use of drugs or otherwise, and why he always wins whenever one of us sins and fails to repent: even if we will not be in his hell: he blocked one of us from obtaining immortality and eternal life.)

Lehi

Interesting explanation, Lehi. If such is the case, would not these conditions apply for Satan as well? He cannot be uninspiritated (nice word) either. Has his eternal progression reached an end? As the sons of perdition as well? Is that the best God wants for his son Satan? Can one eternally remain in a hell vacuum?

[LeSellers]

If such is the case, would not these conditions apply for Satan as well?

They did until he took himself out of the race by his rebellion and divorce from Father and Jesus.

e cannot be uninspiritated (nice word) either. Has his eternal progression reached an end? As the sons of perdition as well? Is that the best God wants for his son Satan? Can one eternally remain in a hell vacuum?

I haven't reflected on this too much, but I believe there is no stasis in eternity. Satan and his sons (and daughters) are "progressing", but in the opposite direction from Father.

BTW, "in-spirit-ation", as you probably recognize, is modeled on "in-carn-ation". It's a uniquely LDS idea (even though, as far as I know, the term is mine), since we are alone in the modern world in believing that we had a pre-pre-mortal existence as intelligences.

Lehi

[CV75]

But, of course--with minor exceptions--we don't know who was foreordained and who then misused his/her free agency to leave mortality in ignominy. Nor do we know, of a surety, what effect that had on his/her eternal salvation. Some people are, obviously, free to speculate.

I think I understand what you're saying here (though I have been known to be wrong). The key phrasing is "a job that is expected to be accomplished in line with the capabilities one has qualified to possess by virtue of his eternal agency to develop. . . ." The question is, if all intelligences were created equal, why did some develop those capabilities and others did not? Apparently, there was something in their "spiritual DNA" that caused them to advance over others.

Your second sentence suggests, again, that characteristics that affect one's conduct in mortality ("humility and pride") and hence one's status in post-mortality are inborn and thus vary from individual to individual. Upshot: Some intelligences have been "commissioned" to succeed in mortality--and beyond--and others have not.

Since we are co-eternal with God, and possess agency, we developed attributes consistent with the exercise of that agency. Being co-eternal and having agency does not necessarily mean equal since, for example, the Father is well ahead of us in His co-eternal advancement. It seems that by virtue of our will and agency we advance from estate to estate at different paces and with different attributes. But only we can account for ourselves--we are a result of our agency, not God's programming. Of course with the veil, we don't remember (and how many veils are there?). Who knows how many "estates" we have gone through; the scriptures speak of only the two; the temple presents us with three or four in this life alone; each time we repent or forgive and forget we experience a new estate. Nothing seems to have prevented us from making it this far. Just like not knowing who was foreordained and then misused his agency, we do not know what may have prevented us from advancing sooner from one estate to the next, and why we lag so far behind the Father. And we truly cannot judge how far we lag behind one another. But we know we made it this far, from the scriptures that show what qualified us to enter mortality. The "inborn" characteristics that we bring into mortality were developed by us pre-mortally and/or are complimentary to what we developed pre-mortally, and in either case, are part of the individual foreordaining consistent with our eternal progress, and all contingent on our agency (and no one entered mortality against their will). To say it in fewer words, we were not created, and we were never equal; but rather we did, do and will decide what we are, co-eternally with God.

[Mudcat]

This thread was created to discuss a problem with classical/traditional/maintream Christianity as seen from the LDS perspective. I had hoped we could get some participants who are not LDS to engage the topic. I see some non-LDS did speak up but did not address the argument, nor attempt to engage the topic. 'Tis a shame. I feel it would be interesting.

I thought I gave a fair response to the issue Though I haven't had the time to respond to Vance or CV's well placed comments on the issue yet. My first post was directed towards you.. of which I have had no response.

In short, from my Evangelical perspective, I believe that God is responsible for the creation of evil and that though incomprehensible to us, he has good reason for doing so. I also pointed out that one of the merits for this temporary existence and allowance of evil is that it will have an eternal end.

I also pointed out, that LDS seem to believe in a fully comprehensible God and that... try as he might, he will never vanquish evil. Nor does he need to, as evil is part of his infinite plan..even though this God seems to want increase the amount of good.

You seem to believe in a God that didn't create evil nor can he destroy it. You seem to think this comprehensible. Why?

[ElfLord]

I thought I gave a fair response to the issue Though I haven't had the time to respond to Vance or CV's well placed comments on the issue yet. My first post was directed towards you.. of which I have had no response.

In short, from my Evangelical perspective, I believe that God is responsible for the creation of evil and that though incomprehensible to us, he has good reason for doing so. I also pointed out that one of the merits for this temporary existence and allowance of evil is that it will have an eternal end.

I also pointed out, that LDS seem to believe in a fully comprehensible God and that... try as he might, he will never vanquish evil. Nor does he need to, as evil is part of his infinite plan..even though this God seems to want increase the amount of good.

You seem to believe in a God that didn't create evil nor can he destroy it. You seem to think this comprehensible. Why?

This brings more problems. Evil doesn't have an end. It gets locked up in a Lake of fire "outside of Gods presence" to burn for eternity forever gnashing its ugly teeth.

How is that even possible with an omipresent God? There isn't anware you can go and NOT be in his presence.

[CV75]

try as he might, he will never vanquish evil. Nor does he need to, as evil is part of his infinite plan..even though this God seems to want increase the amount of good.

He vanquishes evil for Himself, and for us, by exercising agency, so that evil has no place with us (Revelation 20:10-15, Daniel 2:35) or in us (2 Nephi 4:28). But evil does have place with and in others, and yet God continues to be God. The only way to completely annihilate or eradicate evil from any sector is to destroy agency, or to destroy God (2 Nephi 2:11; Alma 42 noting that justice is the end result of choices and that mercy permits the choice of repentance).

[stemelbow]

I thought I gave a fair response to the issue Though I haven't had the time to respond to Vance or CV's well placed comments on the issue yet. My first post was directed towards you.. of which I have had no response.

Thanks. I don't know how I missed it.

In short, from my Evangelical perspective, I believe that God is responsible for the creation of evil and that though incomprehensible to us, he has good reason for doing so. I also pointed out that one of the merits for this temporary existence and allowance of evil is that it will have an eternal end.

How can evil have an eternal end, if as I understand Evangelical belief, people/creatures will be suffering eternally for God not redeeming them? They in essence, it seems, will always be left un-redeemed and inherently evil as a result. Also, is it your opinion that Satan will cease to exist?

I also pointed out, that LDS seem to believe in a fully comprehensible God and that... try as he might, he will never vanquish evil. Nor does he need to, as evil is part of his infinite plan..even though this God seems to want increase the amount of good.

You seem to believe in a God that didn't create evil nor can he destroy it. You seem to think this comprehensible. Why?

Oh but God can destroy it...that is what salvation is about--destroying the evil in us. I simply see the two main options of good and evil being available to all, and some like Satan will choose evil--thus evil desires/intentions/deeds won't be completely annihalted. I find it comprehensible because it only makes sense that for eternity any/all will always have the choice to make between good and evil. We have it now, why not always?

love,

stem

[stemelbow]

This brings more problems. Evil doesn't have an end. It gets locked up in a Lake of fire "outside of Gods presence" to burn for eternity forever gnashing its ugly teeth.

How is that even possible with an omipresent God? There isn't anware you can go and NOT be in his presence.

Indeed "omnipresence" as explained by mainstreamers seems also to be a problem.

Also, if you accept that God is the source of all evil, then how is he good at all?

love,

stem

[stemelbow]

He vanquishes evil for Himself, and for us, by exercising agency, so that evil has no place with us (Revelation 20:10-15, Daniel 2:35) or in us (2 Nephi 4:28). But evil does have place with and in others, and yet God continues to be God. The only way to completely annihilate or eradicate evil from any sector is to destroy agency, or to destroy God (2 Nephi 2:11; Alma 42 noting that justice is the end result of choices and that mercy permits the choice of repentance).

Well said. Better than how I said it.

thanks.

[Mudcat]

This brings more problems. Evil doesn't have an end. It gets locked up in a Lake of fire "outside of Gods presence" to burn for eternity forever gnashing its ugly teeth.

How is that even possible with an omipresent God? There isn't anware you can go and NOT be in his presence.

Hi ElfLord,

I would note, that I am bit outside the mainstream on the notion of a literal eternal hell. I am an annihilationist, by that I mean that the 2nd death referred to in Rev 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." Appears to me to be both the physical and spiritual destruction of all who are without the salvation. So as I see it, evil does have a finite end.

But I don't see this as a problem for more mainstream views of an eternal hell without end. Your point seems to play on a paradox towards omnipresence.. Much in the same way someone might ask if God can make a stone so heavy the he can not lift it.

I think in response, it would be best to simply dismiss the paradox as nonsensical. Sort of like trying to prove a negative. Or perhaps to challenge the paradox with another like, the possibility of an omnipotent being that can create something that is outside of his omnipresence.

Perhaps we could argue on the point of what is actually meant by "being outside the presence of God". If I held such a view, this would actually be my line of thinking. In fact until coming to my present belief on the matter, this was the view I held.

The notion being, that God is quantitatively omnipresent and but only qualitatively present in those beings that are in fellowship with God, ergo the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I think this is fairly persuasive, because God's presence within a person who has the indwelling Holy Spirit would seem to have a rather obvious greater quality than a person without the indwelling Holy Spirit and would certainly seem to apply to a lesser qualitative presence in non-cognitive objects like lumps of coal.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Heartleap]

Let's try this...

Some things thought/done in this world are evil

All things done/thought were known by God before anything else existed (before He created)

Therefore those things that are evil were originally conceived of by God

If one considers, thinks through, the mainstream concept of God (He who is self-existent, knows all things, created all things out of nothing, or His own conception) then it must be concluded, if the logical steps are followed, that God is the very source of evil. Let's think of it this way too...

No evil ever would exist or occur or be thought of if God did not conceive of the evil designs before creating ex nihilo, right?

God had to know, theoretically at least, that Lucifer would rebel and seek to cause destruction among the rest of creation before Lucifer existed. Indeed, thinking of it that way, God being all there was before creation, the very evil deeds of lucifer must have originated in the conception of God. If not so, then God did not know all things before creating. It must be noted that Lucifer would never have rebelled if God did not know, conceive of, the rebellion before creating lucifer. The conclusion then is Lucifer rebelled because God conceived of the rebellion all on his own.

I enourage thoughtful discourse on this topic, and by all means relate any issues with LDS belief as it fits.

love,

stem

God has given us freedoms and Mankind gave the world to Satan when he ate of the forbidden fruit. God provided a way to usher his Kingdom back and that is through Christ. It will not be fully realized until the second coming. God has his purposes and he wants us to love him from our free will. Jesus was and is able to love us when we hate. He knew when he came into the world, from the time he was born what he was going to do. He showed us how to love in the middle of horrible pain, if all was smooth and easy, the meaning of love would loose its saltiness. God knows what it takes for some of us to love him and often it is refined through trials. God is not surprised by what we do. He knows how we are going to react to things and he freely lets us do so, but in the process his love is constant for us and the heavenlies good and bad battle for our souls. Did God create evil, probably, maybe, who truly knows? but this I do know it is real and allowed because of men's choices not Gods. I will not judge Gods intentions I just know that he is here to give us a way out of it.

Heartleap...

[stemelbow]

God has given us freedoms and Mankind gave the world to Satan when he ate of the forbidden fruit. God provided a way to usher his Kingdom back and that is through Christ. It will not be fully realized until the second coming. God has his purposes and he wants us to love him from our free will. Jesus was and is able to love us when we hate. He knew when he came into the world, from the time he was born what he was going to do. He showed us how to love in the middle of horrible pain, if all was smooth and easy, the meaning of love would loose its saltiness. God knows what it takes for some of us to love him and often it is refined through trials. God is not surprised by what we do. He knows how we are going to react to things and he freely lets us do so, but in the process his love is constant for us and the heavenlies good and bad battle for our souls. Did God create evil, probably, maybe, who truly knows? but this I do know it is real and allowed because of men's choices not Gods. I will not judge Gods intentions I just know that he is here to give us a way out of it.Heartleap...

Thanks for the reply. If my argument/presentation in the OP is true regarding mainstream Christianity, then indeed, there is no reason to accept that it all is upon man's choices for mainstreamers. It is God's choice, in essence, since He before creating anything knew all things that would happen. He designed each and every man, including his choices. It must be so, because each man's choice was conceived of by God.

love,

stem