Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

 

Ah that is always the true believer's defense when they have no answer for difficult issues and it is a lousy one and means you really are not able to answer or explain the ideas that are pretty good reasons to reject such a being existing. 

[Teancum]

19 hours 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.

CFR.  What a horrible idea. So five year old is kidnapped, raped and murdered and your god is a ok with that because all they needed was a body and five years or mortal existence. What a crock of horsepucky.

[Teancum]

19 hours 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. 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.

Surely a being as powerful as God allegedly is could come up with a way that spirit child that had progressed so far they only needed a body to get that body is some other less atrocious way.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't know- but someday I will.

That is what choosing to trust God is all about.

I feel that spending inordinate amounts of my time second guessing God and being angry that He permits evil to run it's course is counterproductive.

In other words you have no good answer so just have faith. The biggest crutch and scam of religion from the dawn of human intelligence.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, this idea, of creating a world of all good (of preventing evil) was itself evil - as 2 Nephi 2:17 points out:

But was this plan of Lucifer’s about preventing/completely avoiding behaviours that God defines as evil or about removing the accountability for such behaviours entirely by removing any law so that no one would need to be held accountable?  Seems like the latter is more consistent with how Satan has operated since the Council, persuading people there is no God and/or no law or that the individual should not be held accountable because fill in the blank.  It also appears easier on the surface if one sees the law as imposed by God and not somehow self existent.  Though even there all Lucifer would have had to do was make sure everyone’s IQ was low enough or perhaps all were psychopaths (if that actually means people have no awareness of the light of Christ).  Or assuming it was physically possible to reproduce even without partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (whatever that actually was/symbolizes), Lucifer could have envisioned a world where that never existed.

All of the above defeats the currently defined (based mostly on the BoM) purpose of mortality, but could logically (given the limited info we have of what was required) it seems to me resulted in everyone receiving a body.  Also, if one had or assumed the level of the most shallow interpretation of God’s purpose (return to his presence), everyone could ‘qualify’ in these ways for the Celestial Kingdom just as it is interpreted that those who die unaccountable to the law go to the CK without any further need to make choices or change of self.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Nofear said:

LDS theology, however, provides a clean escape from The Basic Argument.

But since LDS theology requires very limited agency for the primal person, it seems to me the primal person’s behaviour is determined by something they have no control over because they did not create themselves at that level.  We could use the phrase “born that way” modified for however we would label that primal existence “always were that way” to describe what first determined our behaviour and made us limited moral agents according to God’s laws.  But what choice did we have in determining what we were in the beginning?

So it seems to me the clean escape is ‘out of the ashes into the fire’ for LDS theology, we just push back the paradox a step or two it seems to me.

(I am not fond of the image of ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’, I like the Norwegian version I used here better.)

Edited October 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

This is what I have to ask  for Jesus in much of contemporary Mormonism, where his death seems to be the only thing ever discussed anymore, with his mortal ministry an "auxiliary" thing that seems to be increasingly ignored (except where he is interpreted to be speaking in relation to his death).

Could you expand on this?  Not following you.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Fully agree with you here, at least in how Joseph Smith proposed salvation as a communal project rather than an individual one.  Unfortunately though, this view of salvation was abandoned long ago in contemporary Mormonism, which has largely adopted a protestant soteriology of individual salvation (with a nuclear family twist).

I think there are signs we are heading back to it as a more central teaching and never fully lost it (“Families can be together forever”, temple work, etc).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So with man made evil, say those who murdered Jews during the Holocaust, when the victim is murdered they lose their agency. So if agency in regards to human afflicted atrocities, whose agency wins out? The perpetrator's or the victim's?

When you know how that conflict is resolved, please let me know.    (I realize it can be resolved by just removing the question by blinking God out of existence, but that feels more like avoiding the question than resolving it as long as we don’t know with certainty that God doesn’t exist.)

I don’t think someone is inherently lazy or morally weak because they use crutches when they have a broken leg.  Seems more like a sensible, responsible thing to do since it allows them to function more effectively than struggling without the crutch.  And a crutch is not inherently a misshapen, nonsensical construction.  If can be sensibly and realistically constructed according to the laws of physics to substitute for gaps in our physical abilities, why wouldn’t there be sensible and realistic crutches for our spiritual gaps?

Of course, using a crutch when you don’t need it could weaken you or even create problems that didn’t exist before.  The question that no one can answer for anyone else imo for when it comes to spiritual crutches is when a crutch is best and when does it hamper growth,

Edited October 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

that is always the true believer's defense when they have no answer for difficult issues and it is a lousy one

Lousy for convincing others, I would agree.  But if you have had personal experiences that are in your own view best explained by such a description of God and his work, I have found can be it’s a pretty great position to hold practically speaking depending on what you do with that belief (nothing gets me through the senseless days better than my confidence God has a good purpose to all of this, hopefully I am not using it too much as an excuse to avoid responsibilities I should be taking on, I do recognize I use it as a comfort blanket for emotionally charged issues that overwhelm and freeze me).

Edited October 22, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The question of "Why, why, why?" will, most often, never be answered in this realm- and a single-minded focus on the question often does more to embitter than anything else. Either choose to believe in the goodness of God or not. But trying to intellectually answer the question of "Why?" does little to bring peace, nor does nihilism. But really those are your options:

1) Choose to believe in a merciful, good, loving God who will make sense of all this in His time.

2) Drive yourself crazy trying to figure out "Why does God allow suffering?!"

3) Descend into atheistic nihilism.

**I prefer option one.**

 

The lack of decent answers to the why's ought not to be one to lead you to take it on faith. Rather it should lead you to question whether you should have faith when you cannot answer reasonable questions that deserve answers. After all, a religion that requires much of the adherent that has to lean on faith for most the most important questions is not worthy of devotion IMO.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think your idea that breath is a gift from God that he can stop giving any second of the day is nonsense and it conflicts with your belief in agency as well as the idea that God won't interfere with anyone's agency. If God can stop you from exercising your agency at any time God feels like it then you really do not have much agency.

You are correct. God can take any of us back to Him today, or in a year from now, or in 50 years from now. God has our days numbered and chooses the exact moment when to cause death to overtake us. We have zero control over that and can only exercise moral agency in mortality during the time in which God allows us to live. We really don't have much agency, but we have enough. The less we know the less we will be condemned according to the laws of justice, and the only real choice that we need to make is whether or not to follow the light of Christ in our day to day living.

[JVW]

21 hours ago, the narrator said:

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.

I have wondered for many years why there hasn't been a "Mormon serial killer" yet. I know of a news story from the 80s of a couple in Kaysville Utah who believed that they were given a trial of Abraham and stabbed their baby to death on their kitchen counter while truly believing that God would stop them at the last moment. I could see someone believing that God gave them a "righteous" calling of committing souls to Celestial glory by murdering a bunch of kids under 8 years old.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

When you know how that conflict is resolved, please let me know.    (I realize it can be resolved by just removing the question by blinking God out of existence, but that feels more like avoiding the question than resolving it as long as we don’t know with certainty that God doesn’t exist.)

Well that is the entire point. The argument to defend man caused evil and inflicted suffering by saying God won't interfere in the agency man fails miserably because it ignores the agency of the victim.  It also is one leads one to say there is one less bad theodicy argument. And that leads to less reason to have to try to justify evil and suffering with the God of the theistic religions because the problem of evil and suffering speaks out against such a being existing.

 

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think someone is inherently lazy or morally weak because they use crutches when they have a broken leg.  Seems more like a sensible, responsible thing to do since it allows them to function more effectively than struggling without the crutch.  And a crutch is not inherently a misshapen, nonsensical construction.  If can be sensibly and realistically constructed according to the laws of physics to substitute for gaps in our physical abilities, why wouldn’t there be sensible and realistic crutches for our spiritual gaps?

Of course, using a crutch when you don’t need it could weaken you or even create problems that didn’t exist before.  The question that no one can answer for anyone else imo for when it comes to spiritual crutches is when a crutch is best and when does it hamper growth,

So what exactly is the crutch?

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, JVW said:

You are correct. God can take any of us back to Him today, or in a year from now, or in 50 years from now. God has our days numbered and chooses the exact moment when to cause death to overtake us. We have zero control over that and can only exercise moral agency in mortality during the time in which God allows us to live. We really don't have much agency, but we have enough. The less we know the less we will be condemned according to the laws of justice, and the only real choice that we need to make is whether or not to follow the light of Christ in our day to day living.

Well how do you know this since you say you do not know the mind of god but now you are telling us about the mind of god.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Your entire post and theories actually seem to show that you think yo do know the mind of God. 

Well, in case I wasn't clear enough, I do not know the mind of God. But I do know three things more surely than I know that I exist and that you're not an AI poster: there is a God, God is love beyond the ability of human comprehension, and there is an afterlife. So while I may not know why the most loving being in existence designed life to be torturous, cruel, and full of disease and death I believe that the way things are are the most loving way that things could be.

Can I fault anyone for hating God or viewing Him as evil? No. And if you view Him that way I don't blame you. I'm sure you've been hurt in very serious ways, as we all have, and that any of us can be justified in turning our backs on God.

[JVW]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well how do you know this since you say you do not know the mind of god but now you are telling us about the mind of god.

How do I know we are all going to die and that God's responsible for death? Because I know that God exists and I know that death is inevitable and God is powerful enough to prevent it. I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

[JVW]

As the conversation has progressed on this thread I've been reflecting on how the problem of evil is inherently tied to trust in God, because there is no satisfactory explanation for this problem. As an addict I've been attending various 12 step meetings regularly for a number of years and the 3rd step of AA is "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him". The first three steps, summarized succinctly are: I can't, He can, I let Him. And the key principle in step 3 is to consciously choose to trust God. It is a huge step and a very difficult one to take, but one that every recovering addict needs to take in order to be completely free of addiction through the program.

The challenging aspect of trusting God as an addict (speaking for myself) is that the root cause of my addiction is childhood trauma and I've had to wrestle with why God didn't protect me or prevent me from becoming a victim. In a way, I feel like God is the cause of my addiction because of what He let happen to me and for some other reasons that I won't go into here. Yet I'm supposed to trust God, who let me be hurt so deeply while in a vulnerable state, and let Him make decisions in my life that will supposedly free me of the bondage I'm in. It's not just a conceptual issue but a deeply emotional and painful thing to consider. It's taken me years to take step 3, and I know some people who have been in the program for over a decade who have still not taken step 3. And even after having taken the step, there are days when I step back and doubt the trust that I've placed in God. It's something that I have to work on every day. Life is hard.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

After all, a religion that requires much of the adherent that has to lean on faith for most the most important questions is not worthy of devotion IMO.

If it gives little in return, I would agree with you. Depending on what is does give in abundance, I think it could be a highly reasonable choice (if one were happier, felt more stable and safe, was secure in such so better able to offer help and love to others, etc) or an unreasonable one…created more fear than it quieted, created hate and sense of insecurity) as in good fruit vs bad fruit. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So what exactly is the crutch?

Varies for the person I suspect. 

[the narrator]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could you expand on this?  Not following you.

What I mean is that in contemporary LDS discourse, the importance and value of Jesus is that he was born to die. Thus, discussions about the life of Jesus are largely limited to him being born, baptized, suffering in Gethsemane, dying on the cross, and being resurrected. The material focus of his ministry and the reasons he gained a following--and was executed--are largely ignored. And his words that are most emphasized are those dealing with his death.

As a result we get claims from LDS leaders like: "[Jesus's] focus was not on the political challenges of the day; it was on the perfection of the saints," as if he was executed by the state for offering hippie aphorisms.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think there are signs we are heading back to it as a more central teaching and never fully lost it (“Families can be together forever”, temple work, etc).

This is what I meant with individual salvation with a nuclear family twist. Joseph's notion of establishing a kingdom of heaven on earth that would collectively attain celestial glory has been replaced individual families being saved and exalted. It's essentially individualistic salvation extended to traditional nuclear families (or polygamist ones for Oaks and others who believe in that)

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But since LDS theology requires very limited agency for the primal person, it seems to me the primal person’s behaviour is determined by something they have no control over because they did not create themselves at that level.  We could use the phrase “born that way” modified for however we would label that primal existence “always were that way” to describe what first determined our behaviour and made us limited moral agents according to God’s laws.  But what choice did we have in determining what we were in the beginning?

So it seems to me the clean escape is ‘out of the ashes into the fire’ for LDS theology, we just push back the paradox a step or two it seems to me.

(I am not fond of the image of ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’, I like the Norwegian version I used here better.)

Two things and to some extent I agree with both. The first is that our primal agency is not guaranteed when we are embodied. It is very true that with my physical body that I do not and cannot control everything it does. I agree with what I think Teancum (my apologies if I error, just a quick pop in to the thread) is trying to say and that Lucifer's plan wasn't to redefine sin away but to simply make it so we would not choose sin. I think it entirely plausible our spirits could have been put into bodies that would dissuade any activity that would have been sinful. I call moral agency a miracle because it is not a given. God balanced our physical bodies in just the right way to make our mortal experience tenable and allow us moral agency.

The second is that you are also right that as we are uncreate beings we did not "choose" to be who we are. But, we can't say that we push back a "step or two". There are no more steps to push back. The turtles don't go all the way down. It is the end of the road. And if we can't assign responsibility to an entity for the nature of its uncaused existence then we can't assign responsibility to anything at all. Nothing is culpable or ever could be (not even God). So, I don't push it back a step or two. I can't. The buck stops with me and who I am.

Another miracle is that because of the technology of the Atonement, I have opportunity to choose to change and better my fundamental nature. That will be my choice. Now, am I, by inherit nature the kind of being who will choose to afford himself of the opportunity or by nature one who will not make that choice? Well, I am what I am. I hope I am the former being and trying to realize that hope by what I do.

 

Edited October 22, 2025 by Nofear

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, the narrator said:

a result we get claims from LDS leaders like: "[Jesus's] focus was not on the political challenges of the day; it was on the perfection of the saints," as if he was executed by the state for offering hippie aphorisms.

Except this was followed by pointing to his life (“mortal sojourn”) as the example we should be following:

Quote

As we contemplate the challenges of our day, we must remember that the Savior, during His earthly ministry, also lived in turbulent and violent times. His focus was not on the political challenges of the day; it was on the perfection of the Saints.

Following the Savior and His doctrine and teachings has never been easy in a world that is constantly in commotion. It was not easy for the Savior in the volatile world during His mortal sojourn, it was not easy for our early leaders and members, and it is not easy for us.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/10/27cook?lang=eng

I see a significant push for us to go out into our communities to serve others, this includes providing actual opportunities by funding JustServe as well as local leadership setting up projects, ongoing volunteer opportunities (our stake covers helping out at a local food bank as well as having collection drives throughout the year).  Becoming politicians, going to rallies and protests, etc…that side is not encouraged as far as I can see, but that does not imply we are to isolate ourselves from the greater community and only focus on spiritual growth.

[the narrator]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I see a significant push for us to go out into our communities to serve others, this includes providing actual opportunities by funding JustServe as well as local leadership setting up projects, ongoing volunteer opportunities (our stake covers helping out at a local food bank as well as having collection drives throughout the year).  Becoming politicians, going to rallies and protests, etc…that side is not encouraged as far as I can see, but that does not imply we are to isolate ourselves from the greater community and only focus on spiritual growth.

My point is that Jesus's ministry was very political. He didn't just share aphorisms about loving neighbors, and even those instances (such as his parable of the good samaritan) were directly criticizing the priestly class and those in power. The very act that the Gospels say directly led to his execution was a political act: His protest at the temple, where he explicitly emulated Jeremiah and accused the priests of turning the temple into a den of thieves was about as political as one could get at the time, and the stated reason for his execution placed above his head was explicitly political.

I am not saying that the Church is completely ignoring Jesus's mortal ministry; rather, that by repeatedly emphasizing his death as the thing that really mattered about his life but not acknowledged the reason of his death, his life has become that of a shallow and inconsequential dispenser of aphorisms that few if any would have followed.

To paraphrase the the theologian and priest Jon Sobrino, to understand who Jesus was we need to stop asking why did he die and instead ask why they killed him.