Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil

[marineland]

On 10/18/2025 at 2:53 PM, InCognitus said:

BYU professor David L. Paulsen stated the problem this way:

But the doctrines of the restored church as revealed by God to Joseph Smith resolves all of these issues.  See (the same article quoted above), Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil, David L. Paulsen, Professor of Philosophy, September 21, 1999.

The article ends with his testimony:
 

Quote

Joseph had no training in theology, no doctor of divinity degree; his formal 
education was at best scanty. And yet through him comes light that dissolves 
the profoundest paradoxes and strengthens and edifies me through my own 
personal trials.

 

That article breaks it down into 3 categories for analysis.

I. The Logical Problem of Evil
II. A Soteriological Problem of Evil
III. The Practical Problem of Evil

What thought process of Joseph Smith in his writings would explain this aspect
of evil? Would "evil" in these scenarios just symbolize God's punishment instead
of him being the origin of evil whereas "good" is symbolic of blessings?

"Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, 
as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were 
greatly distressed" (Judges 2:15).

"For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith 
the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall 
burn it with fire" (Jeremiah 21:10).

"And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command 
the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, 
and not for good" (Amos 9:4).

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, marineland said:

That article breaks it down into 3 categories for analysis.

Maybe you could summarize what each of these mean in a sentence or two for those of us who can’t focus long enough on the article to get the meaning for ourselves, please?

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, marineland said:

That article breaks it down into 3 categories for analysis.

I. The Logical Problem of Evil
II. A Soteriological Problem of Evil
III. The Practical Problem of Evil

What thought process of Joseph Smith in his writings would explain this aspect
of evil? Would "evil" in these scenarios just symbolize God's punishment instead
of him being the origin of evil whereas "good" is symbolic of blessings?

The problems of evil are spelled out in the article as well as why the common responses to those problems don't resolve the issues. 

Have you read the article fully or listened to his presentation?  (It's also in audio format).  I suggest you do that to get the complete picture before asking questions, because what you ask above is addressed in the article.  

Paulsen states the following in the article:

Quote

Joseph Smith’s Way Out

Joseph Smith’s way out of the conceptual incoherency generated by the traditional theological premises is to not go in. His revelations circumvent the theoretical problem of evil by denying the trouble-making postulate of absolute creation—and, consequently, the classical definition of divine omnipotence. Contrary to classical Christian thought, Joseph explicitly affirmed that there are entities and structures which are co-eternal with God himself. On my reading of Joseph’s discourse, these eternal entities include chaotic matter, intelligences (or what I will call primal persons), and lawlike structures or principles. According to Joseph Smith, God’s creative activity consists of bringing order out of disorder, of organizing a cosmos out of chaos—not in the production of something out of nothing. Two statements from Joseph’s King Follett sermon should give some sense of how radically his understanding of creation departs from the classical Christian notion. With respect to the Creation, Joseph wrote:

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means . . . to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter. . . . Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.⁸

More particularly, with respect to the creation of man, Joseph added:

The mind of man—the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so. . . . I am going to tell of things more noble.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. . . . [But] who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. . . . How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself.”⁹

So to start with the entire premise of creation is different in Joseph Smith's view, as well as the fact that there are beings that co-exist with God (all of us), and that impacts the very purpose for our existence here on earth and everything that goes along with that.  

There is much more that could be added, but you really should read the article to understand the problems that are set forth in the philosophical arguments before trying to criticize the approach. 

[the narrator]

Paulsen and all other LDS theologians' attempts to appeal to agency or limited divine powers suffer from the problem of miracles--that is, the religious and scriptural tradition that their notions of God derive from are replete with narratives of God doing precisely that which they are now arguing God is unable to do.

If they want to be consistent and say that the many miracles by God attested to in the scriptures are not factually or historically true but instead merely religious narratives and myths about God, then perhaps their arguments can be taken seriously, but I have yet to see any of them make such a claim.

[Teancum]

On 10/20/2025 at 3:37 PM, marineland said:

The article ends with his testimony:
 

 

That article breaks it down into 3 categories for analysis.

I. The Logical Problem of Evil
II. A Soteriological Problem of Evil
III. The Practical Problem of Evil

What thought process of Joseph Smith in his writings would explain this aspect
of evil? Would "evil" in these scenarios just symbolize God's punishment instead
of him being the origin of evil whereas "good" is symbolic of blessings?

"Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, 
as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were 
greatly distressed" (Judges 2:15).

"For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good, saith 
the Lord: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall 
burn it with fire" (Jeremiah 21:10).

"And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command 
the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, 
and not for good" (Amos 9:4).

I will read the article. The problem of evil and suffering is, in my view, a major philosophical issues for all theistic religions. I have found the LDS view on this as good, if not better than, most other ideas and attempt to answer this problem.  But I still find it lacking. I like Paulsen's writings so I will definitely review this.

Edited October 22, 2025 by Teancum

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I will read the article. The problem of evil and suffering is, in my view, a major philosophical issues for all theistic religions. I have found the LDS view on this as good, if not better than, most other ideas and attempt to answer this problem.  But I still find it lacking. I like Paulsen's writings so I will defiantly review this.

Welp, I hope you're not too defiant in your review!  (AutoComplete or AutoCorrect strikes again? )  That would definitely be a problem.  

Sorry.    Couldn't resist!   We now return you to your regularly-scheduled on-topic programming, already in progress.  

[teddyaware]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I will read the article. The problem of evil and suffering is, in my view, a major philosophical issues for all theistic religions. I have found the LDS view on this as good, if not better than, most other ideas and attempt to answer this problem.  But I still find it lacking. I like Paulsen's writings so I will defiantly review this.

The fact that through the atonement of Jesus Christ nearly all of mankind will receive a glorious physically and spiritually healing resurrection, and thereafter obtain a sure inheritance in one of the Father’s heavenly mansion’s of glory, where they will receive joy and a very real deliverance from the transitory effects of evil, any of apparent philosophical loose ends that uninspired men continue to wrestle with as they confront the  so-called problem of evil will be dispelled and banished forever. Since all will eventually be saved and redeemed (the only exception being that class of men who utterly refuse to receive Christ’s forgiveness and be saved) our experience in coming face to face with evil is going to end marvelously and miraculously well. In the end, the divine laws of justice and mercy are going to be fully satisfied, and consequently there will be none remaining who will rightly be able to protest that they are yet the victims of unresolved injustices. In the end everything is going to wonderfully work out for the best, with truth, the sum total of existence, remaining eternal and unchanged forever more.

I know that there are many who will say that these scripturally based answers are too pat and facile to take seriously because there are some who take a certain measure of perverse handwringing “joy” by being forever perplexed and troubled, shunning simple and reasonable answers to life’s great questions. I suppose it’s like finally catching that proverbial big fish and instantly wanting to throw in back into the lake.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Paulsen and all other LDS theologians' attempts to appeal to agency or limited divine powers suffer from the problem of miracles--that is, the religious and scriptural tradition that their notions of God derive from are replete with narratives of God doing precisely that which they are now arguing God is unable to do.

If they want to be consistent and say that the many miracles by God attested to in the scriptures are not factually or historically true but instead merely religious narratives and myths about God, then perhaps their arguments can be taken seriously, but I have yet to see any of them make such a claim.

Why are miracles a problem?  If God has limited divine powers, wouldn't He still be able to perform miracles?

[the narrator]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

Why are miracles a problem?  If God has limited divine powers, wouldn't He still be able to perform miracles?

Because if God can split the Red Sea, raise the dead, cause soaking bushels of wood on fire, send bears to kill children for mocking a balding prophet, kill every first born son in a region, turn water into wine just to please Mary, feed thousands with just a little bit of food, cure leprosy, STOP THE SUN FROM MOVING, help people find their car keys, etc., then He should be able to prevent a young child from being brutally raped and murdered.

The claim that Paulsen and others make that God doesn't stop children from dying of malnutrition because he is not all powerful falls pretty flat if you also accept that Jesus turned water into wine to not ruin the fun for wedding guests.

Edited October 21, 2025 by the narrator

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Because if God can split the Red Sea, raise the dead, cause soaking bushels of wood on fire, send bears to kill children for mocking a balding prophet, kill every first born son in a region, turn water into wine just to please Mary, feed thousands with just a little bit of food, cure leprosy, STOP THE SUN FROM MOVING, help people find their car keys, etc…

I think your idea is clearer*** by modifying it to  ‘without violating man’s agency in these circumstances, then God can surely find a way to prevent ______ without violating man’s agency as well’.  Confusion might occur if someone thinks you are just referring to the ability to do miracles and not doing miracles within the context of maximizing man’s agency while doing so…which I do see as a problem with our beliefs.  If it was only minor stuff we claim God did, that would be one thing.  There seems to be at least some miracles that push/force action to go a certain way annd therefore belief may become knowledge….at least knowledge in the sense we typically use it and that would violate agency, such as the death of the firstborn.  That was a massive demonstration of God’s power.  Even if it didn’t permanently move Pharoah’s heart, how many others who experienced it personally believed that the God of Israel existed and was supreme etc because of such a demonstration?  Same with the Red Sea miracle.

I think people could be skeptical still with the raising of the dead, thinking it some sort of trick, also the wine and bread and fish, even the bears could have been captured ahead of time and the released on cue because they knew he would be mocked for something when he appeared….but wholesale targeted death (just the firstborns and no others) in that day and age is rubbing people’s nose in the reality of God and his power.

Recognizing the issue does not mean I reject the premise of God respecting man’s agency, I just believe we need to refine our explanations more.  I am also open to such undeniable, very public miracles being embroidered reality, but if we accept these stories and teach them as examples of God’s power in our talks and lessons, then we need to deal with them as accurate representations.

***assuming here I have interpreted you correctly.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

I recognize, fully, that others' mileage varies, and that's fine.  I have been the recipient, on a few memorable occasions, of [what I believe to be] miracles.  Yet, on the other hand, there have been occasions on which God has seemed inexplicably, stubbornly, frustratingly, maddeningly silent.

It is as though the Lord says to me, "Yes, Ken.  You can, if you choose, ignore, downplay, or discount the 'Oliver Cowdery, Did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind, What-greater-witness-can-you-have-than-from-God?' moments we've had together in favor, instead, of privileging your 'Brass Heavens' moments.  That is one option available to you.  But whichever option you choose, that is your choice."

The last blessing I received under the hand of a(n) [(inspired? As much as part of me might be reluctant to admit this, I believe so] Priesthood holder, I was told that the Lord was mindful of me in premortality, He is mindful of me in mortality, and He will be mindful of me in the hereafter/postmortality.  While, as I said in the beginning, I recognize that others' mileage varies, what more can I ask?

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think your idea is clearer*** by modifying it to  ‘without violating man’s agency in these circumstances, then God can surely find a way to prevent ______ without violating man’s agency as well’.

The freewill defense proposed by Alvin Plantinga (and latched onto by Mormon theologians) is largely smoke and mirrors for the reasons you give. Plantinga plays around with supposed logical possibility while ignoring the grounded reality of suffering--so much so that his explanation as to why God doesn't stop natural evils (earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, etc) is because it's possible that those are caused by demons and angels who have agency that God doesn't want to disrupt.

The big problem though with the "God respects agency" argument is that we ALL reject the underlying premise. If I saw a child about to be kidnapped and didn't do anything about it because I respected the predator's agency, you would all find that absolutely horrendous. Our (well, I hope this is true for everyone) moral duty frequently requires us to stop someone and prevent them from acting, and not a single person here (though I wouldn't be surprised here if teddyaware proves to be an outlier) would think it wrong to prevent someone from committing a morally heinous act out of a respect for their agency to do evil. To the contrary, we would all find it morally disgusting.

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think your idea is clearer*** by modifying it to  ‘without violating man’s agency in these circumstances, then God can surely find a way to prevent ______ without violating man’s agency as well’.  Confusion might occur if someone thinks you are just referring to the ability to do miracles and not doing miracles within the context of maximizing man’s agency while doing so…which I do see as a problem with our beliefs.  If it was only minor stuff we claim God did, that would be one thing.  There seems to be at least some miracles that push/force action to go a certain way annd therefore belief may become knowledge….at least knowledge in the sense we typically use it and that would violate agency, such as the death of the firstborn.  That was a massive demonstration of God’s power.  Even if it didn’t permanently move Pharoah’s heart, how many others who experienced it personally believed that the God of Israel existed and was supreme etc because of such a demonstration?  Same with the Red Sea miracle.

I think people could be skeptical still with the raising of the dead, thinking it some sort of trick, also the wine and bread and fish, even the bears could have been captured ahead of time and the released on cue because they knew he would be mocked for something when he appeared….but wholesale targeted death (just the firstborns and no others) in that day and age is rubbing people’s nose in the reality of God and his power.

Recognizing the issue does not mean I reject the premise of God respecting man’s agency, I just believe we need to refine our explanations more.  I am also open to such undeniable, very public miracles being embroidered reality, but if we accept these stories and teach them as examples of God’s power in our talks and lessons, then we need to deal with them as accurate representations.

***assuming here I have interpreted you correctly.

You raise an interesting point. I don't know if the following idea is related to your post but you got me thinking about it.

I think moral agency is defined within a scope or boundary that God sets. Every breath we take is a gift from God and He can stop giving us that gift at any second of any day. With some He stops breathing in them when they are a baby, and with others they are over 100 years old. The fact that our breathing is only possible via God's power (which is something that I believe) means that the agency I exercise is only able to be exercised as long as God feels like letting me exercise it. When I also consider all of the things that have happened to me in my life that were out of my control and shaped who I was (Chris Williams comes to mind as an example. He lost his pregnant wife and a few children when he was hit by a drunk driver) I can see that the choices I'm presented with are influenced, in large part, by a reality that is outside of my control.

While I do have moral agency, it is very clear to me that it is a gift. And each person's gift of moral agency may be larger or smaller in size, scope, or length of time given in which to exercise it in mortality. These are all choices that God makes. I think that in the Church, and in the world generally, that the amount of choices God makes in each person's life day-to-day is drastically understated and overlooked. That is one of the reasons why the Old Testament is my favorite religious text. I love how clearly it portrays God's ability to make decisions, regardless of how the reader interprets them.

I think the following is related to your post, I have no idea why the above went through my mind while reading your post but whatever.

I think one of the most remarkable things about God is that He hasn't been caught yet while being ever present in every person's life. The way we have been designed makes it so that there is no way anything God does will provide irrefutable evidence of His existence. We always have a choice whether or not to believe. Those who believe because they witness a miracle are given an opportunity, but I'm pretty sure that in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon there is talk about how faith precedes miracles and not the other way around.

[JVW]

11 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The freewill defense proposed by Alvin Plantinga (and latched onto by Mormon theologians) is largely smoke and mirrors for the reasons you give. Plantinga plays around with supposed logical possibility while ignoring the grounded reality of suffering--so much so that his explanation as to why God doesn't stop natural evils (earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, etc) is because it's possible that those are caused by demons and angels who have agency that God doesn't want to disrupt.

The big problem though with the "God respects agency" argument is that we ALL reject the underlying premise. If I saw a child about to be kidnapped and didn't do anything about it because I respected the predator's agency, you would all find that absolutely horrendous. Our (well, I hope this is true for everyone) moral duty frequently requires us to stop someone and prevent them from acting, and not a single person here (though I wouldn't be surprised here if teddyaware proves to be an outlier) would think it wrong to prevent someone from committing a morally heinous act out of a respect for their agency to do evil. To the contrary, we would all find it morally disgusting.

I agree with you and I think we all have an impetus to act to reduce the suffering in the world. However, we are not God, our vision is not His vision. You or I may think that the best thing in life is getting a good job, a good house, raising a few kids, fighting for social justice, advancing scientific knowledge, etc. But to God those may be (IDK) things that make it more difficult to do His job. I learned back in 2011 that I'm a very poor judge of determining what is good and bad in my life. But I do believe that it is good to act with integrity and if something is wrong to do whatever it takes to make it right.

I'm not purporting to know what the mind of God is, but my current best guess is that His primary concern is all of us coming to Christ for salvation and redemption. In the scriptures I read about how God is in all things and that all things testify of Christ. It's as if God designed the entire universe from the quantum to the astrological realm to communicate one thing: the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I think that the problem of evil is one of the greatest wrestles each of us has with God. In my life, during my wrestle with Him, before I ever chose to give up and submit, I turned my back on God and grew angry with Him. After many, many years and some colorful prayers and acknowledgements I gave up and He changed my heart. I believe He can do the same for anyone and that that is the greatest miracle of all.  Ultimately, whether I think that God is good or evil doesn't matter, He's still going to allow or cause the suffering and death of every person who's ever lived on this planet and there's nothing I can do to stop Him from doing that.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The big problem though with the "God respects agency" argument is that we ALL reject the underlying premise. If I saw a child about to be kidnapped and didn't do anything about it because I respected the predator's agency, you would all find that absolutely horrendous. Our (well, I hope this is true for everyone) moral duty frequently requires us to stop someone and prevent them from acting, and not a single person here (though I wouldn't be surprised here if teddyaware proves to be an outlier) would think it wrong to prevent someone from committing a morally heinous act out of a respect for their agency to do evil. To the contrary, we would all find it morally disgusting.

But we could apply this to something like surgery.  Most of us could not imagine a reason why someone would cut open a child and remove an organ unless we knew the greater context of appendicitis and recognized not only the medical necessity, but the possibility that it was healing.

I am not saying that experiencing horrors inflicted by nature and man must be similar in an eternal context, I am just not sure how we can remove the possibility when it’s so easy to find examples where lack of knowledge turns things horrific that aren’t.

Now there is a huge difference because the intent of who we see as the actor in these cases…the murderer is evil, malicious; the surgeon is beneficent. 

 I think you could extend the analogy a bit to cover natural disasters by viewing the doctor as God and  the biological processes that cause the illness as the actors who are restrained or overcome by miracles, as in sometimes the doctor judges there will be more harm done by the cure than the illness and so allows nature to take its course.  Think of standing by and letting your child suffer a fever when you could act remove it, but it’s not high enough to be dangerous and you don’t always want to suppress the body’s natural reaction….like taking fever reducer before a vaccination to remove all likely suffering be abuse that may lessen the effect of a vaccine.

But that reasoning isn’t that applicable imo when actual evil intent is involved.  That’s not nature taking its course, but one actor moving with intent to destroy the agency of another.

 I have to go to an appointment so that all I have for now.  Not sure I have anything to add anyway.  That last bit, evil men intentionally hurting others is something I haven’t resolved even if I am comfortable saying that each actor is expected to act morally in the level,of knowledge they have.  We know that the surgeon means no harm and good will come of it even without our personal actions, so are justified in not intervening.  I see this as likely similar to God and the natural disasters of life, big and small.  It’s part of our ‘biological processes’.  Evil intent changes that imo though.  And I haven’t fit not acting for the greater good into that because other miracles do seem to show God is capable of ensuring agency when he acts.

[the narrator]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

"greater good"

If you believe that the Holocaust, Palestinian genocide, children dying of malnutrition by the thousands across the globe, malaria, thousands of children being abused each day resulting in trauma that harms them for the rest of their lives, countless rapes, murders, etc. are all for the greater good... then I have nothing to say.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

If you believe that the Holocaust, Palestinian genocide, children dying of malnutrition by the thousands across the globe, malaria, thousands of children being abused each day resulting in trauma that harms them for the rest of their lives, countless rapes, murders, etc. are all for the greater good... then I have nothing to say.

Those are man made evils, evil intent is involved, intentional removal of others’ agency and therefore are not seen by me as answered by the argument I used for natural disasters (and even there that pushes the boundaries for me).

Added: I said “not acting for the greater good”

Edited October 21, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I don’t find the idea that a lot of evil comes from the decisions of humans convincing. We were put in a world that fosters this kind of competition and predation on each other. It is baked into the system. If God created the world he was okay with the suffering we would inflict on each other since the environment and our own nature actively encourages it. It is like putting three rats into a cage with only enough food for two to eat enough to survive and enough for one to eat their fill and then tutting them as bad for getting violent about it.

[stelf]

I think whenever we discuss the problem of evil in the lds context there seems to be a heavy emphasis on agency and it pretty much always focuses on the agency of the perpetrator of evil and not on the agency of the victim. If someone murders a young child it is presented that they are saved. But this removes the agency of these children. They never get to make any decisions about their eternal welfare. This bypasses all the "essential" parts of life other than gaining a body.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

All this discussion basically comes down to:

Do you trust God or not?

That is a choice we all have to individually make.

I trust that God is a loving, merciful being who knows what He is doing and that this will all be reconciled and make sense in the end.

From Pres. Spencer W. Kimball:

Chapter 2: Tragedy or Destiny?

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-2?lang=eng

 

Edited October 21, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, stelf said:

I think whenever we discuss the problem of evil in the lds context there seems to be a heavy emphasis on agency and it pretty much always focuses on the agency of the perpetrator of evil and not on the agency of the victim. If someone murders a young child it is presented that they are saved. But this removes the agency of these children. They never get to make any decisions about their eternal welfare. This bypasses all the "essential" parts of life other than gaining a body.

 

Some have progressed so far in their pre-mortal state that gaining a body is really the only thing they needed to do.

[stelf]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Some have progressed so far in their pre-mortal state that gaining a body is really the only thing they needed to do.

This is bold claim for which you have no evidence. If it is possible to progress sufficiently in a pre-mortal state that exercising agency in this life is not needed then I see no reason why anyone should be sent to earth before reaching that state. Additionally, this would imply that God specifically places these "special" spirts into those situations in which they will die young.

No, I completely reject your reasoning. This is not a God worthy of trusting. This would be saying that we should trust God loves us, but we don't really have any idea what love even is.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, stelf said:

This is bold claim for which you have no evidence. If it is possible to progress sufficiently in a pre-mortal state that exercising agency in this life is not needed then I see no reason why anyone should be sent to earth before reaching that state.

I'm guessing because only some are able to progress that far, others need to mortal experience to help them along.

5 minutes ago, stelf said:

Additionally, this would imply that God specifically places these "special" spirts into those situations in which they will die young.

Jesus had a unique experience suited only for him.

5 minutes ago, stelf said:

No, I completely reject your reasoning. This is not a God worthy of trusting. This would be saying that we should trust God loves us, but we don't really have any idea what love even is.

OK.

[the narrator]

35 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Some have progressed so far in their pre-mortal state that gaining a body is really the only thing they needed to do.

If you truly believe this, then you should go to nurseries and just kill every baby and child you see. If they die, they go to the celestial kingdom and you do more to ensure that God's children are saved than any missionary possibly could. If God wants them to not die, then He'll make sure that doesn't happen, I guess.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

If you believe that the Holocaust, Palestinian genocide, children dying of malnutrition by the thousands across the globe, malaria, thousands of children being abused each day resulting in trauma that harms them for the rest of their lives, countless rapes, murders, etc. are all for the greater good... then I have nothing to say.

Back from the appointment:

I think you misunderstood.  I said I couldn’t factor evil intent into the greater good explantation, not that I am assuming it fits somehow.

And even if I do trust there is an answer, I don’t believe it will be ‘the innocents’ mindless, excruciating or endless suffering is okay because….’.  I don’t believe some of my suffering where I have been reduced to the level of nonthought, just feeling agony (thankfully only got there a few times in my life) was somehow useful, helped me learn anything and my suffering was so temporary it comes nowhere near the level of suffering of the above examples you point to above, so I don’t see inherent purpose in that type of suffering either…and add to that evil intent, it wasn’t a necessary part of a natural world, but a choice by someone to harm another….the only thing learnt there are some people can be scum imo.  If I saw effective community effort to protect and restore when possible (freely handing out drugs to those in need, resisting of corruption by those who can make things happen, etc), I might feel differently about it, but we have been given great knowledge of widespread corruption and greed that needs to be fought as well as resources that could eradicate many diseases and poverty if we worked effectively together, but it doesn’t happen because of human nature and instead appears to be getting worse….it’s not reasonable to me to see much learning how to be better people overall occurring on a grand enough scale to balance out the level of suffering that is present.

And since God judges us for our thoughts as well as our actions according to Jesus, I don’t buy the usual interpretation that God allows the wicked to kill and torture so the innocents’ blood will stand as a witness against them.  (Alma 14:11) especially given Alma and Amulek’s blood was not required for the same purpose and God protected and rescued them with the prison walls collapsing and them walking out unharmed while their jailers were killed (though they had suffered, been deprived and tortured iirc while in prison).  This is one episode I think will have to wait for me to be okay with until I actually see the women and children who were killed and hear their POVs of their experiences as well as God’s explanation.  I am not inspired by what Alma says in this case.

Edited October 21, 2025 by Calm