Justice Of God

[Wanderer7]

I was participating in a discussion about Job today. It was brought up that the story of Job is a paradox. The reasoning was that if :

1) God is just

2) God is all powerful

3) Job was a good person

Then:

God would have rewarded Job for his righteousness and prevented his severe trials. Since He did not, one of the three postulates must be false. We of course discussed the goodness of Job and the purpose of trials, in addition to God's ability to control agency, etc. At first I did not even consider that the first postulate could be wrong. However, upon reflection I considered that it may not be accurate, at least not in the way we consider it. If we take just to mean (based on Webster) giving according to that which is merited or deserved, then why did Job suffer so much while other less worthy people do not? It then crossed my mind that perhaps the most injust act of all time was the atonement of Jesus Christ. He didn't deserve the punishment for our sins. We deserve it. Yes, justice is satisfied in the whole "justice and mercy" equation. However, in the simplest sense, is God really just? Any thoughts?

[CASteinman]

My first thought was

Any thoughts?

My first thought is:

Isn't this exactly why people look to Job in times of trouble and consider what exactly is the cause of trials?

Why do good people suffer?

My second thought is:

How Literal is Job? I believe that he was probably a real person who really suffered and was especially abused by his friends.

But was the rest of the story all that precisely accurate? Is it really a matter of a duel between God and Satan?

I don't care if Joseph Smith were to appear in front of me now and say "Yes", I still doubt it.

And maybe that's why God prefers to appear to 14 year olds.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Frankly, I don't want God to be just. I want Him to be merciful and wise.

[TAO]

How much do you think Job was rewarded at the end of his life? How much will be rewarded after this life? Quite a bit, I would think.

Is God just? Yes, I'd say definately. However, it is sometimes not in the immediate timeframe of our point of view. Sometimes it takes years for us to see how, but he is definately just.

Edited March 21, 2013 by TAO

[Duncan]

I think we all want justice for others and mercy on ourselves. There are situations in life that we want rectified and the bad people brought to account for their actions, I can think of a couple thousand things in life!

[CASteinman]

I think I understand the distinction made in Alma regarding Justice and Mercy. It is a great lesson in the Book of Mormon.

And I greatly appreciate the talk by Elder Packer titled "The Mediator".

But over time I have come to believe that there may be more to this than a dichotomy. Like faith vs works, it also seems to me that justice and mercy are two aspects of the same basic thing. I don't entirely know how this is. With Faith and Works, I think of it as two sides to the same coin. Two sides to the same sheet of paper.

But with justice and mercy, I sort of think of it like quarks in a neutron -- they are different but never ever able to be separated.

Its not intellectual but I *feel* that perhaps -- it is just that we would receive mercy and it is merciful that we obtain justice.

[Stroopwafel]

In my opinion, one issue with this whole "problem of evil", at least in the way it is postulated in the OP, is that premise 1) God is just, is quite vague. The terms "justice" or "just" are concepts which I believe we do not grasp correctly. No matter how certain we may believe our understanding is of what "justice" means, we actually have a confused idea about it. J.S. Mill actually has some interesting thoughts in the 5th chapter of his work Utilitarianism, which I think highlights some of the difficulties to pin point what exactly is justice.

Ultimately, the problem of evil isn't so much of a problem, depending on how one defines "justice".

[Wanderer7]

That's kind of what I was wondering about, Stroopwafel. I'll have to look up Mill's writings. I appreciate the other comments so far. I understand that in the end, as Joseph Smith taught, all our losses will be made up. Still, that doesn't seem to address it fully. For istance, consider two different people who basically live good lives. Sure, they make different mistakes and maybe to slightly different degrees, but both live clean, honest, charitable lives. One experiences the normal troubles associated with life, ie, loss of parents and a few other loved ones, some illness and injury, maybe a wayward child or friend, etc---things pretty much everyone will experience to some degree. The other one, however, has a very difficult life. Perhaps serious illness for prolonged periods, the loss of children and the early loss of a spouse, perhaps a child with a severe disability, serious financial struggles--Things above and beyond the norm. Both lived faithful lives and can expect to inherit "all the Father hath." How will the one who suffered more have their losses made up beyond the one who suffered far less?

[Stroopwafel]

It is always comforting to say that in the end, all will be fine. But first, when is that? and second, meanwhile, the suffering in the world is atrocious, and it seems as if no divine intervention ever happens to directly help humanity, at least at a large scale. Those are some legitimate issues many have.

If one is not prone to believe or has not already a believe in God, having someone say that "all this suffering is part of a plan, and that though we don't understand everything in that plan, things will be fine in the end", will seem like dodging the issue. Because of the vague answer, one comes to suspect this someone doesn't have a grasp at the details of said plan, and eventually come to the conclusion that this someone is as clueless as he or she is.

That's a hard thing to reconcile: assuming equality in worthiness and material condition (family background, culture, means, etc.), why would God choose to have one of his children go through life without too much trouble, while having another one go through a heck of a though one? Would God be partial?

You say:

How will the one who suffered more have their losses made up beyond the one who suffered far less?

It's always when you want to get into the details that things become murky.

In the end (ha!), I think that the biggest frustration may be in being offered an explanation which is no explanation at all because it feels more like a chicken soup quote rather than a real and sincere attempt at assessing and understanding the human condition in its fulness.

[Ahab]

I was participating in a discussion about Job today. It was brought up that the story of Job is a paradox. The reasoning was that if :

1) God is just

2) God is all powerful

3) Job was a good person

Then:

God would have rewarded Job for his righteousness and prevented his severe trials. Since He did not, one of the three postulates must be false.

No, your premise is false. God did reward Job for his righteousness, in his own time, but where are you getting the idea that God should have prevented his severe trials? Do you think he prevents everyone's severe trials? If he did for one but not for another, in the same circumstances, then that wouldn't be just/fair, would it. To be just/fair, he simply needs to treat one person as another in the same circumstances, and in this situation God was allowing Satan to try Job to teach Satan the lesson that Job was not being good just because of his good situation in life.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Frankly, I don't want God to be just. I want Him to be merciful and wise.

My doctor told me the other day..."when I stand before God, I have not interest in justice, I want mercy".

[Ahab]

My doctor told me the other day..."when I stand before God, I have not interest in justice, I want mercy".

Do you think everyone should receive mercy from God, and to the same degree?

I sometimes wonder how God will be both just and merciful when he judges us for what we have done considering some will not have done what it takes to quality for receiving mercy.

[Mansquatch]

I was participating in a discussion about Job today. It was brought up that the story of Job is a paradox. The reasoning was that if :

1) God is just

2) God is all powerful

3) Job was a good person

Then:

God would have rewarded Job for his righteousness and prevented his severe trials. Since He did not, one of the three postulates must be false. We of course discussed the goodness of Job and the purpose of trials, in addition to God's ability to control agency, etc. At first I did not even consider that the first postulate could be wrong. However, upon reflection I considered that it may not be accurate, at least not in the way we consider it. If we take just to mean (based on Webster) giving according to that which is merited or deserved, then why did Job suffer so much while other less worthy people do not? It then crossed my mind that perhaps the most injust act of all time was the atonement of Jesus Christ. He didn't deserve the punishment for our sins. We deserve it. Yes, justice is satisfied in the whole "justice and mercy" equation. However, in the simplest sense, is God really just? Any thoughts?

If Job was presented the unfair suffering in his premortal life and chose to accept it then the situation is much more inline with justice. Much like how Christ chose to go through his suffering. I cannot think of a scripture or teaching that definitively states that spirits were presented with a view of experiences before this life, so such a possibility would be speculative.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Do you think everyone should receive mercy from God, and to the same degree?

No, but like any good parents he would walk through hell...as Christ did to do all he can. Sometimes we tie his hands and he grieves. But we will get justice if we let Christ's payment have effect in our lives. For those who believe God (our Father) could burn his children for hundreds of billions of years...know nothing of parental love. The "sons of perdition" choose outer darkness...there are many reasons; "Jesus wept".

[Yep]

I was participating in a discussion about Job today. It was brought up that the story of Job is a paradox. The reasoning was that if :

1) God is just

2) God is all powerful

3) Job was a good person

Then:

God would have rewarded Job for his righteousness and prevented his severe trials. Since He did not, one of the three postulates must be false. We of course discussed the goodness of Job and the purpose of trials, in addition to God's ability to control agency, etc. At first I did not even consider that the first postulate could be wrong. However, upon reflection I considered that it may not be accurate, at least not in the way we consider it. If we take just to mean (based on Webster) giving according to that which is merited or deserved, then why did Job suffer so much while other less worthy people do not? It then crossed my mind that perhaps the most injust act of all time was the atonement of Jesus Christ. He didn't deserve the punishment for our sins. We deserve it. Yes, justice is satisfied in the whole "justice and mercy" equation. However, in the simplest sense, is God really just? Any thoughts?

Justice does not equate to a concept that bad things do not happen to good people. Justice would state that, given that bad things happened to a good person, repairing the balance would require good things to happen to Job.

[tyler90az]

We have no idea of how Job was rewarded. We know three things though: First, God is just, second, there is life after death and third, God operates on his own time frame. To assume God is not just because of our limited ability to see God's plans is false.

In reality, the sooner you get to the spirit world the better, if you are righteous. What is better, if somebody killed me today or if I die at 83?

I just watched a gem of a talk last night that you would like.

http://www.byutv.org/watch/f24646b1-0945-4d33-872c-ac95e564ec73/byu-education-week-brent-l-top-2010

[longview]

We have no idea of how Job was rewarded. We know three things though: First, God is just, second, there is life after death and third, God operates on his own time frame. To assume God is not just because of our limited ability to see God's plans is false.

In reality, the sooner you get to the spirit world the better, if you are righteous. What is better, if somebody killed me today or if I die at 83?

Nobody should be overly concerned with what rewards Job got. I am sure Job is very joyous at the things he learned from his "trial of fire." Because of it, he has greater exaltation and a "better resurrection." Everyone should remember that God put Abraham thru some serious testing. Also, Joseph Smith was severely buffeted throughout his life but we can see that he became a magnificent person toward the end of his life.

Don't forget that the purpose of mortality is to learn all we can that we could not in the pre-existence. Sometimes God sees fit for some of us to endure grief or shocking disappointments or grievous illness or persecutions or whatever. If we do not harden our hearts at the experience, then we shall learn compassion, empathy, greater wisdom, humble gratitude, etc. This life of mortal probation is a tremendous opportunity for us. Therefore we should NOT be overly afraid of the experiences we could and will have.

Daniel 12:10

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

[Stone holm]

My first thought was

My first thought is:

Isn't this exactly why people look to Job in times of trouble and consider what exactly is the cause of trials?

Why do good people suffer?

My second thought is:

How Literal is Job? I believe that he was probably a real person who really suffered and was especially abused by his friends.

But was the rest of the story all that precisely accurate? Is it really a matter of a duel between God and Satan?

I don't care if Joseph Smith were to appear in front of me now and say "Yes", I still doubt it.

And maybe that's why God prefers to appear to 14 year olds.

Never been a big fan of the Book of Job. You kill all his children and destroy his possessions because of a bet you made with Satan? Come on -- let's get real.

[CASteinman]

Never been a big fan of the Book of Job. You kill all his children and destroy his possessions because of a bet you made with Satan? Come on -- let's get real.

On the other hand, when the Savior says to Joseph, "thou art not yet as Job...", this suggests to me that Job was a real person with real trials. It would be trivializing to tell someone suffering in prison ... to encourage them.. that they were not like some fictional character.

So, I think he was real. On that basis, primarily.

I find some types of biblical apologetics regarding Job to be a bit silly. Here is an example that, when I read it, I just stare and say "Seriously? You don't see the problems here?".

"Finally, that Job was a real person is stated explicitly by God within the book of Job itself. In his second “speech” to Job, God declared that the mighty behemoth was “made along with you” (40:15, emp. added). If Job were just a fairy tale-like character, God certainly would not have spoken as having “made” him."

[Questing Beast]

I was participating in a discussion about Job today. It was brought up that the story of Job is a paradox. The reasoning was that if :

1) God is just

2) God is all powerful

3) Job was a good person

Then:

God would have rewarded Job for his righteousness and prevented his severe trials. Since He did not, one of the three postulates must be false. We of course discussed the goodness of Job and the purpose of trials, in addition to God's ability to control agency, etc. At first I did not even consider that the first postulate could be wrong. However, upon reflection I considered that it may not be accurate, at least not in the way we consider it. If we take just to mean (based on Webster) giving according to that which is merited or deserved, then why did Job suffer so much while other less worthy people do not? It then crossed my mind that perhaps the most injust act of all time was the atonement of Jesus Christ. He didn't deserve the punishment for our sins. We deserve it. Yes, justice is satisfied in the whole "justice and mercy" equation. However, in the simplest sense, is God really just? Any thoughts?

God is perfectly just, which means that God is also perfectly unjust. The faith required of us is to accept that God is always perfectly just with us, in this world, the way it is set up: no exceptions, changes or alterations to the "rules", end of discussion. How many of us have that perfect faith in an all powerful, all knowing God?

The Job Story is about a man that God knew would be even better after going through temporary hell. The myopic view says that Job suffered needlessly and unjustly. The eternal view says that Job would not have appreciated how good he Is, or how much God loves him, without experiencing his temporary loss, without which he would not have known the contrast of existence sufficiently to become as much like God as possible....

[Stone holm]

On the other hand, when the Savior says to Joseph, "thou art not yet as Job...", this suggests to me that Job was a real person with real trials. It would be trivializing to tell someone suffering in prison ... to encourage them.. that they were not like some fictional character.

So, I think he was real. On that basis, primarily.

I find some types of biblical apologetics regarding Job to be a bit silly. Here is an example that, when I read it, I just stare and say "Seriously? You don't see the problems here?".

"Finally, that Job was a real person is stated explicitly by God within the book of Job itself. In his second “speech” to Job, God declared that the mighty behemoth was “made along with you” (40:15, emp. added). If Job were just a fairy tale-like character, God certainly would not have spoken as having “made” him."

Have no reason to doubt that Job existed, its the Book of Job that I have doubts about in particular the betting sequence, but then again I am reminded of the famous exchange between Einstein and Bors when Einstein declared that God does not play dice and Bors responded who are you to say what God does or does not do.

[Questing Beast]

That entire section of the D&C was extracted from a letter dictated by Joseph Smith from Liberty Jail to be read in "general conference", which I believe it was. It was not personally to Joseph Smith, as it appears to be exclusively in the D&C. So it was not the Lord speaking only to Joseph Smith, but rather Joseph Smith speaking to the Church, as their prophet in exile, uplifting the Saints, and using his personal trials as an illustration of what they were all going through. The entire letter is in print, my copy is in Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. The point is, Job need not be a literal person in order for the story of Job to be used to illustrate with....

Edited March 26, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CASteinman]

The point is, Job need not be a literal person in order for the story of Job to be used to illustrate with....

I think that if he was not a literal person, it is not a good illustration.

[Stone holm]

I think that if he was not a literal person, it is not a good illustration.

True, but I think Questing Beast has a point. It is not terribly clear who Job was or where the events took place. But I tend to think that it was a true story (at least the events which occurred on Earth -- not the discussion between God and Satan) and not just Hebrew wisdom literature -- yet there is that nagging nonsense at the beginning which taints the whole thing.

[CASteinman]

yet there is that nagging nonsense at the beginning which taints the whole thing.

Even that nagging nonsense at the beginning is based on truth. I consider the story to be factually incorrect regarding the bargaining but not incorrect regarding the notion that satan and God have encounters from time to time and that they fight over souls and that there is a court in heaven.