Problem with the LDS solution to the Problem of Evil?

[Facsimile 3]

Who knows?

The scripture seems to me to speak only about the evils, death, etc. of this life.

I think evil will still touch us in our abode with God. One could think of it like a child finishing elementary school through high school. He my think,"So long suckers, I'm free!" But when he has to help his future children through the same experience it all hits close to home just like it had when he was a child. Whether looking from the bottom up or the top down, I seems like there will be no escaping the influence of evil.

[tictac]

Actually, if you read the account in Genesis where the Lord God and Cain are discussing the nature of sin, there is something very relevant that many people miss. This is the one passage of scripture that actually speaks out against predestination, as well as the misconception of "free will". ...

(snip)

This is an excellent post. But, clearly, evil can be perpetrated against others, which means that the free-will option of either accepting or rejecting it is not necessarily available to those who are the victims of it when generated by others. That part of the equation usually receives the unsatisfying answer, "Heavenly Father had a plan for them in Heaven, so they were taken".

Unfortunately, that appears to leave evil as an instrument used or allowed by God to 'recall' people. Something about that just doesn't make sense, but with the caliber of the posts in this thread already, I'm betting that someone has a satisfying explanation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I am not sure I accept the last conclusion. I believe that, to an extent, allowing evil is the loving thing to do. For example, if it is loving for a parent (or omnipotent God) to enable his child to know good, and if it takes evil in order for the child to know good, then allowing evil is a loving thing for the parent (or omnipotent God) to do. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, the LDS solution is taken here as an adequate response in that regard. The question, however is about the consequences of such a solution, namely: the ostensible continuation of evil.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems the LDS response to this quandary is essentially that God isn't omnipotent. For example the following verse from Alma 42:

In other words God is constrained by spiritual laws beyond his control just as man is bound by physical laws beyond his control.

But is that scripture prescriptive, descriptive, etc.

[mfbukowski]

Will evil cease to touch you in the future when those spirits under your stewardship, who you will eventually come to love as much as God Himself, use their agency poorly and receive the buffetings of Satan?

I am curious why this is important. I feel like I am missing something?

I feel God is so far above that, in a sense he is above emotion. Yes the bible seems to give him emotion, but I have always had a problem with that. Am I wrong?

[Facsimile 3]

I am curious why this is important. I feel like I am missing something?

I feel God is so far above that, in a sense he is above emotion. Yes the bible seems to give him emotion, but I have always had a problem with that. Am I wrong?

I don't know, are our emotions a manifestation from our carnal nature as beasts or do they emanate from our spirits? Is God so great because He is no longer subject to human-like emotions, or does he have them at a much deeper level?

This is however, still important either way if you are wondering whether God is still touched by evil.

[Luigi]

But is that scripture prescriptive, descriptive, etc.

It seems to me to state that God cannot contradict this law of justice without being destroyed. How do you interpret it?

[mfbukowski]

It seems the LDS response to this quandary is essentially that God isn't omnipotent. For example the following verse from Alma 42:

In other words God is constrained by spiritual laws beyond his control just as man is bound by physical laws beyond his control.

"Self-determination" is a term we use to describe making ones own laws and then sticking to them.

If you decided that you were no longer going to eat meat, and then ate some, you would be breaking your own "laws", and that would make you less than you could be.

That's why we feel guilty when we break our new years resolutions.

For God, the consequences would be infintely worse.

[mfbukowski]

I think evil will still touch us in our abode with God. One could think of it like a child finishing elementary school through high school. He my think,"So long suckers, I'm free!" But when he has to help his future children through the same experience it all hits close to home just like it had when he was a child. Whether looking from the bottom up or the top down, I seems like there will be no escaping the influence of evil.

One of the worst things you can do as a parent, and one of the hardest things you should do, is to NOT always comfort a crying child when they are put to bed.

Every child expert will tell you that the child needs to learn to comfort himself- you know that he is in his crib, fed, not in trouble, but it is very hard not to respond. As a parent, you just "tough it out" because you know it is the best thing for the child.

It's like the chick breaking out of the shell- if you help it, it will die, because it will not develop the strength it needs to carry on, but letting it work its own way out will give it strength and a long life.

I don't think God is sentimental. Compassionate, yes, loving of course, but he knows what must be done and does it with strength.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, that appears to leave evil as an instrument used or allowed by God to 'recall' people.

God uses evil for his purposes all the time.

If it weren't for the fall, we would not have had the atonement or exaltation.

He basically tricked Satan into doing His will.

[Luigi]

"Self-determination" is a term we use to describe making ones own laws and then sticking to them.

If you decided that you were no longer going to eat meat, and then ate some, you would be breaking your own "laws", and that would make you less than you could be.

That's why we feel guilty when we break our new years resolutions.

For God, the consequences would be infintely worse.

That would seem a strange thing to do. "I am going to make a law that if I break it I will destroy myself."

[staccato]

This discussion takes me back to the time when I first started having children and was trying to contemplate the concept of being a Heavenly parent.

Is God happy? Would you be happy if you had to be constantly looking at mortal children who were suffering? And those were the ones that made it to earth, not the giant chunk who had already rebelled with you?

If an eternal parent can be happy under such a circumstance, it would seem that becoming more divine means losing or having to define the notion of love as we currently understand it. So it would appear to me that in order to become more like God, one would have to become ambivalent to a child's suffering.

That was a huge problem for me as a mormon because my life and eternal goals were set to become as Godlike as possible. I'd almost prefer the idea that God is not the parent of mortal children, rather than have a so-called perfect being who couldn't care less of a child's suffering.

[Facsimile 3]

One of the worst things you can do as a parent, and one of the hardest things you should do, is to NOT always comfort a crying child when they are put to bed.

Every child expert will tell you that the child needs to learn to comfort himself- you know that he is in his crib, fed, not in trouble, but it is very hard not to respond. As a parent, you just "tough it out" because you know it is the best thing for the child.

It's like the chick breaking out of the shell- if you help it, it will die, because it will not develop the strength it needs to carry on, but letting it work its own way out will give it strength and a long life.

I don't think God is sentimental. Compassionate, yes, loving of course, but he knows what must be done and does it with strength.

I agree with you on all of the above. But STILL that does not change the fact that the parent FEELS for the suffering child. Which I would say is an example of the parent's life being touched by "evil."

[staccato]

I agree with you on all of the above. But STILL that does not change the fact that the parent FEELS for the suffering child. Which I would say is an example of the parent's life being touched by "evil."

Exactly. If God loves us so much, he would seemingly be in constant torment due to the state of the world, and the state of his children.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know, are our emotions a manifestation from our carnal nature as beasts or do they emanate from our spirits? Is God so great because He is no longer subject to human-like emotions, or does he have them at a much deeper level?

This is however, still important either way if you are wondering whether God is still touched by evil.

I vote for "he has them at a much deeper level", and I think we can see suffering in a way similar to him. It is a part of life.

[Facsimile 3]

Exactly. If God loves us so much, he would seemingly be in constant torment due to the state of the world, and the state of his children.

That gets really tricky outside of time doesn't it?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

One of the worst things you can do as a parent, and one of the hardest things you should do, is to NOT always comfort a crying child when they are put to bed.

Every child expert will tell you that the child needs to learn to comfort himself- you know that he is in his crib, fed, not in trouble, but it is very hard not to respond. As a parent, you just "tough it out" because you know it is the best thing for the child.

It's like the chick breaking out of the shell- if you help it, it will die, because it will not develop the strength it needs to carry on, but letting it work its own way out will give it strength and a long life.

I don't think God is sentimental. Compassionate, yes, loving of course, but he knows what must be done and does it with strength.

Actually, Pediatricians have come out against the Crying out philosophy. They have discovered that allowing an infant young child to cry it out is deteremental to their development than if a parent were to come in and comfort them.

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. If God loves us so much, he would seemingly be in constant torment due to the state of the world, and the state of his children.

Excellent point. I think this proves the contradiction. If this is true it would make being God hell.

OK I am monopolizing the thread. I will shut up now for awhile

[Facsimile 3]

Excellent point. I think this proves the contradiction. If this is true it would make being God hell.

OK I am monopolizing the thread. I will shut up now for awhile

No way dude.

I still want to know how you got the idea that I think God should run in and rescue us from suffering based on this quote.

Will evil cease to touch you in the future when those spirits under your stewardship, who you will eventually come to love as much as God Himself, use their agency poorly and receive the buffetings of Satan?

[mfbukowski]

Actually, Pediatricians have come out against the Crying out philosophy. They have discovered that allowing an infant young child to cry it out is deteremental to their development than if a parent were to come in and comfort them.

Every 10 minutes after you put them to bed and it lasts all night?

CFR on that one.

[mfbukowski]

No way dude.

I still want to know how you got the idea that I think God should run in a rescue us from suffering based on this quote.

Because I am an ornery cuss.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

This is an excellent post. But, clearly, evil can be perpetrated against others, which means that the free-will option of either accepting or rejecting it is not necessarily available to those who are the victims of it when generated by others. That part of the equation usually receives the unsatisfying answer, "Heavenly Father had a plan for them in Heaven, so they were taken".

Unfortunately, that appears to leave evil as an instrument used or allowed by God to 'recall' people. Something about that just doesn't make sense, but with the caliber of the posts in this thread already, I'm betting that someone has a satisfying explanation.

The satisfying answer is in how we choose to allow our emotions to play a part in our decision making.

Hypothetically speaking. My daughter is kidnapped, and we found out who kidnapped her.

Emotionally, I and her mother would be devastated, we will be upset, angry, and our emotions will be boiling.

Now, out of my anger, I decide to go out and purchase a gun, hunt down the kidnapper and kill them. My choice is based on an emotion of anger. Regardless of it being part of the fact that I am her parent and desire to protect her. Yet, because of my anger, I choose to commit a crime as a result of someone else's crime. That is where Evil resides.

With the same scenario, her mother and I, our families, and ward collectively pray for our daughter, for comfort, for peace, for the kidnapper, and that whatever happens, we will be able to pull through this tragedy. Our decision is based on emotion, and while we experience the emotions of anger, hate, resentment, frustration, hurt, sadness, and loss, we are dealing with it in a more appropriate way. We are taking control of those emotions and understanding where those emotions are.

Now, let us change the scenario up.

I am at home, and someone breaks in. I have a duty to protect my family and this intruder has created a threat to our own lives. In the struggle, I end up killing the intruder. Have I committed a sin? No, because my decision is based on emotions, and the protection of my family. Yes, emotions come into play here, and therefore, I would be angry, but I also will be motivated by that anger to protect myself and my family against the intruder.

I do agree that when someone else makes a choice and that choice impacts us individual, we have to make a choice in response of the given circumstances. Again, this is all evident in the practicality of every day life.

We can sit here and continually speculate on whether or not God is omniscient, omnipotent and why a loving God allows evil to co=exist, but the reality is that God is God, and we are mere mortal beings.

Christ said it perfectly in his parable on the wheat and the tares. While it is talking about the End times and the Restoration and the coming judgment, the application is still present.

We were planted here to grow in our mortality. Among those, there will be the tares that will grow along side of us, sometimes choking us out. But, if God were to come down and irradicate out the tares, then he would have to also take out those who are righteous as well.

And, while this is hard for us to understand and grasp, the reality is that God did not Create Evil, evil has always existed. This is evidenced with the rebellion of Lucifer in the Pre-existence and how he choose not to be a party of the redemption that Heavenly Father wanted.

[Facsimile 3]

Because I am an ornery cuss.

That is true, but you work the ornery cuss angle more tastefully than most .

[Facsimile 3]

I think evil will still touch us in our abode with God. One could think of it like a child finishing elementary school through high school. He my think,"So long suckers, I'm free!" But when he has to help his future children through the same experience it all hits close to home just like it had when he was a child. Whether looking from the bottom up or the top down, I seems like there will be no escaping the influence of evil.

Edited to clarify: Also read this post in context with post #22

The man may feel for his childrens' struggles in grade school, but that does not mean that he swoops in and protects them against learning from their struggles on their own. The father does not do the homework for his kids nor beats up the bullies.

And Yes, in some limited way, I feel this analogy works just fine with our Father in Heaven. He certainly has the power to relieve us from our burdens, but that would not be what a loving father would always do.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Every 10 minutes after you put them to bed and it lasts all night?

CFR on that one.

CFR Provided

http://www.drbenkim.com/articles-attachment-parenting.html

We live in an age where we can know that the baby is safe in another room, despite the loudness of his cries. Does this mean we should leave babies to cry on their own? CIO proponents often advise that babies left to cry will eventually stop, and the duration of future crying bouts will decrease. What are the emotional consequences of crying for the infant when she is left unattended? Bowlby and colleagues initiated a series of studies where children between the ages of one and two who had good relationships with their mothers were separated from them and left to cry it out. Results showed a predictable sequence of behaviours: The first phase, labeled