Problem with the LDS solution to the Problem of Evil?

[tictac]

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.

To be fair, one could argue that evil resides just as strongly or more so in the heart of the kidnapper. If the kidnapper has a fondness for placing their victims into mulchers, then the evil is magnified, and the victim still without recourse through free will. Again, this is a odd path for a loving Heavenly Father to test the tendency of another to submit to (an arguably righteous) evil in reaction to it... and it still leaves the issue of the victim unresolved as to why they were the chosen sacrifice to achieve that end.

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.

The idea that God did not create evil is understood (but eliminates God's omnipotence by subjecting Him to forces greater than Himself); even so, it seems that the imagination of God could render other methods to test an individual's faith than by actively deciding to use evil as a tool. This is disturbing because the conclusion limits God even further by assuming that there is no other method that could be either thought of or employed.

[CV75]

What's your take on this problem with our solution to the problem of evil?

My take: A key is found in the verse you cited, D&C 124: 86: "If they live here let them live unto me; and if they die let them die unto me; for they shall rest from all their labors here, and shall continue their works." I think the term "labors here" refers to an exhausting expenditure of physical or mental effort under difficult, frustrating or compulsory circumstances, as opposed to the eternal condition described in D&C 121: 46, "The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever," where "labor there" is part of a perpetually expanding and replenishing system.

This gets around the Epicurian riddle and the limited conclusions we make with limited understanding. Do we really understand evil, omnipotence and omni-benevolence as much as God does? There is a difference between the short-range, long-range and eternal views of what these things mean, and we sometimes call evil "good", and good "evil" without realizing it because of what we don

[Lamanite]

The difficulty I find with discussing this subject in this type of forum is that we approach a philosophical and theological standard that requires us to start defining every single word in the whole world [/hyperbole]. In this case we need to define the word "evil", "heaven," and "effects" at a minimum; and that doesn't include certain words and phrases from the OP.

But let's have a go at it and assume we have the same definitions. And where we don't, lets use simplicity as a guide.

I thought it was generally accepted that evil is eternal and that in all spheres there will be felt, to a varying degree, the very real existence of evil. Proximity and degree of influence is something I can't ascertain as it would require a static point in the time/space continuum. Simply put, the presence/effects of evil will be an absolute in Heaven.

It is in my nature to take this very abstract discussion to a very temporal and very real example. I'm going to resist doing so out of respect for the discussion. But if anyone wants to take a specific example of mortal suffering and work outwards to establish a connection to God and the Savior, I think that would be a great way to approach this subject.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

CFR Provided

I acknowledge your CFR, and true to my character, I have a lot to say about it, but to do so would be an incredible derail to this most interesting thread. But thank you- your evidence certainly upholds your point of view. Maybe another thread another day!

[Lamanite]

"...If God is so loving, omniscient, and omnipotent, then how can he allow suffering and evil to continue in this world? The answer is that it is not because God is allowing it, or not allowing it, but it is because it is based upon humanity's moral agency and accountability."

I swore I wasn't going to get into this.

If we can think outside the box for a minute, let me pose a hypothetical.

God is all powerful and all loving. God being Omnipotent he chooses to create beings that are perfect. He wants to do this because of his Omni-benevolence and can do this because of his Omnipotence. Consequently, God has a heaven full of perfect children that create a perfect happiness. He also creates them with an imprint of opposites so that they can enjoy their perfect existence. Agency is perfectly intact. The only difference is that he has perfect children that choose not to violate his law. Perfect bliss and happiness forever.

Now, if you find yourself saying "yeah but....", then you will eventually create a conditional clause that God must exist within. This clause/law/boundary nullifies his omnipotence.

Thereby leaving Him with conditional power and Omni-benevolence.

Mormonisms God is not Omnipotent.

If you can take me to school on this one then I'm ready and willing to get on the bus.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

I swore I wasn't going to get into this.

You have good instincts.

If we can think outside the box for a minute, let me pose a hypothetical.

Uh oh.

God is all powerful and all loving. God being Omnipotent he chooses to create beings that are perfect. He wants to do this because of his Omni-benevolence and can do this because of his Omnipotence. Consequently, God has a heaven full of perfect children that create a perfect happiness. He also creates them with an imprint of opposites so that they can enjoy their perfect existence. Agency is perfectly intact. The only difference is that he has perfect children that choose not to violate his law. Perfect bliss and happiness forever.

Now, if you find yourself saying "yeah but....", then you will eventually create a conditional clause that God must exist within. This clause/law/boundary nullifies his omnipotence.

Thereby leaving Him with conditional power and Omni-benevolence.

I think this sets up some false dichotomies which go back perhaps even to Neoplatonism.

If one takes an approach using linguistic analysis, an approach which has dominated philosophy for the last hundred years, the false dichotomies imo become non-existent.

Another way of saying this is that it all comes down to definitions- ....

Mormonisms God is not Omnipotent.

The difficulty I find with discussing this subject in this type of forum is that we approach a philosophical and theological standard that requires us to start defining every single word in the whole world [/hyperbole]. In this case we need to define the word "evil", "heaven," and "effects" at a minimum; and that doesn't include certain words and phrases from the OP.

But let's have a go at it and assume we have the same definitions.

If you can take me to school on this one then I'm ready and willing to get on the bus.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Nah, I don't need to drive the bus.

You're driving it just fine all by yourself.

[cdowis]

God is all powerful and all loving. God being Omnipotent he chooses to create beings

You are using an assumption here, that God creates "beings". That is a false assumption, because we have always existed. We are co-existent with God. He provided us a spiritual body, and, eventually, a physical one. But He did not "create" us (assuming you mean ex nihlo).

Also, omnipotent has another meaning in LDS theology. God is governed by laws. Of course He has an understanding of higher laws than we are aware, but nevertheless He is bound by law. For example, He is bound by oaths and covenants.

that are perfect. He wants to do this because of his Omni-benevolence and can do this because of his Omnipotence. Consequently, God has a heaven full of perfect children that create a perfect happiness. He also creates them with an imprint of opposites so that they can enjoy their perfect existence. Agency is perfectly intact. The only difference is that he has perfect children that choose not to violate his law. Perfect bliss and happiness forever.

Now, if you find yourself saying "yeah but....", then you will eventually create a conditional clause that God must exist within. This clause/law/boundary nullifies his omnipotence.

Thereby leaving Him with conditional power and Omni-benevolence.

Mormonisms God is not Omnipotent.

But it does answer the question, can God create an object so heavy that he cannot move it? The answer is no. The so-called omnipotent God is self-contradictory. He can change His mind at a whim, and we have no promise, the scriptures are meaningless, and the Atonement has no lasting effect in our lives.

I prefer our understanding of omnipotent. God is bound by law.

If you can take me to school on this one then I'm ready and willing to get on the bus.

Climb on board.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Cdowis,

I appreciate you making my point. Why not embrace the accepted definition of Omnipotence as ALL POWERFUL? All powerful transcends those boundaries you impose on God. All powerful transcends any and all limitations. As a word its implications are in direct contradiction to the limited power you ascribe him. I'm not sure why we as Mormons can't say,

"Of course God is not omnipotent. If God ceased to operate by certain laws then he would cease to be God. This conditional bestowal of Godhood is contrary to having unlimited power and authority. Of course he only has those powers and authorities that are granted by obedience to the laws of the universe. Of course he can't create perfect beings because it would be contrary to the laws and boundaries of that sphere in which he exists. I say again, of course God is not Omnipotent! But he is powerful enough to offer redemption, and that is what matters."

As a Mormon there simply is no reason to try and redefine Omnipotence. We should be proud of our doctrine as it is. We don't need to try and massage it into something other Christians will recognize or approve of. It's satisfying for me to embrace our theological differences without trying to fit myself into their philosophical and theological paradigms and definitions.

God is all loving. God is relatively Omniscient. God is powerful enough.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[danieljbelk]

The big problem with tribulation and evil, as I see it, is that eternity is a long time, and one would expect that evil vs good would come to an equilibrium. Stated another way, how can there be eternal progresssion if there is no beginning?

Another related question - is what is the grand purpose of God? After you've saved all the children that could possibly be saved, is there meaning to his existence?

I don't have a good answer for any of them - perhaps all y'all can enlighten me.

[CV75]

The big problem with tribulation and evil, as I see it, is that eternity is a long time, and one would expect that evil vs good would come to an equilibrium. Stated another way, how can there be eternal progresssion if there is no beginning?

Another related question - is what is the grand purpose of God? After you've saved all the children that could possibly be saved, is there meaning to his existence?

I don't have a good answer for any of them - perhaps all y'all can enlighten me.

Opposition in all things does not mean balance in all things or equilibrium in all things (God always wins).

The changing states experienced by something that has no beginning is a form of progress (change can also be a form of regress).

As for God's purposes, there is no end to the children that can be saved, and no end to the meaning of His existence.

[Jason]

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.

Of course, pediatricians also change their minds on the subject about every ten years or so.

[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.

It's also worth noting that breaking one's new years resolution happens because one either lacks control or foresight. Neither would be a problem, I assume, that God has.

Also your suggestion that breaking God's own laws would make God 'less than he could be' suggests some eternal principal that God is somehow subservient to.

[Jason]

It's also worth noting that breaking one's new years resolution happens because one either lacks control or foresight. Neither would be a problem, I assume, that God has.

Also your suggestion that breaking God's own laws would make God 'less than he could be' suggests some eternal principal that God is somehow subservient to.

Are you subservient to the law of gravity, or merely subject to it?

[Luigi]

Are you subservient to the law of gravity, or merely subject to it?

Either way I am constrained by gravity, just as God appears to be constrained by spiritual law according to LDS belief. This would mean he is not omnipotent.

[stelf]

Either way I am constrained by gravity, just as God appears to be constrained by spiritual law according to LDS belief. This would mean he is not omnipotent.

Your argument does not logically follow. If I choose to obey the speed limit, it's not because I lack the ability to drive faster.

[danieljbelk]

Your argument does not logically follow. If I choose to obey the speed limit, it's not because I lack the ability to drive faster.

Not speeding because you don't want to get a ticket is still a constraint. If God loses his powers because he abuses them, that still means he's not omnipotent, because he can lose them.

[Jason]

Either way I am constrained by gravity, just as God appears to be constrained by spiritual law according to LDS belief. This would mean he is not omnipotent.

I would agree that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to do absolutely anything.

He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything that can be done. Logical impossibilities are out.

[mfbukowski]

Also your suggestion that breaking God's own laws would make God 'less than he could be' suggests some eternal principal that God is somehow subservient to.

I suppose that principal would be non-contradiction. Why build something just to tear it down or make a law just to break it? Maybe that makes sense to you, but not to me.

Yes, if God contradicted himself, he would be rather unreliable and I certainly would not worship such a being. Perhaps more importantly I could not worship, or value, the concept that one should contradict oneself on a regular basis. Could you?

If God NOT contradicting himself somehow makes him "not omniscient" then I suggest the the whole concept of omniscience makes no sense, especially when you ask questions like "Could God make a boulder so big he could not lift it?"

Again in even asking this question you are setting up a contradiction. If you want to play word games and pretend you are doing something useful, have at it.

By the way, while you are at it, please tell me if gravity is blue or green, or if courage sounds more like a trumpet or bassoon.

You can argue that all day too and it will make as much sense. I'm glad Alice in Wonderland is fashionable again.

[mfbukowski]

I would agree that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to do absolutely anything.

He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything that can be done. Logical impossibilities are out.

That's it exactly, and that is what is being argued. Good luck y'all

[stelf]

Not speeding because you don't want to get a ticket is still a constraint. If God loses his powers because he abuses them, that still means he's not omnipotent, because he can lose them.

This still does not follow. Getting a ticket or even having a license revoked does not remove my ability to drive faster. It would certainly cause other problems for me, but it does not eliminate my capability.

[stelf]

I would agree that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to do absolutely anything.

He is omnipotent in the sense that He can do anything that can be done. Logical impossibilities are out.

I also agree completely.

[Luigi]

I suppose that principal would be non-contradiction. Why build something just to tear it down or make a law just to break it? Maybe that makes sense to you, but not to me.

It wouldn't make sense, you're right. But neither does making a law and saying God adheres to it because He would 'cease to be God'. If God doesn't want to contradict himself instead of Alma 42:13 reading like this:

Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

It should read like this:

Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; (God made it that way and He will not contradict himself)

One suggests God has to obey certain constraints-which is why justice is the way it is- while the other suggests God made the laws the way He did and that's just the way it is.

However this brings us to another way to look at the problem of evil. If God created the universe and all the spiritual laws what would have been his reason for doing so? If God is omnipotent He has no constraints (setting logical contradictions aside) and consequently whatever results is his preference. If evil results, that is His preference. If you suggest He couldn't have evil without having something else then that is a constraint and therefore he is not omnipotent.

[Luigi]

This still does not follow. Getting a ticket or even having a license revoked does not remove my ability to drive faster. It would certainly cause other problems for me, but it does not eliminate my capability.

But if you create the laws and can control the consequences of those laws why would you create a speed limit?

[Lamanite]

I would agree that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to do absolutely anything.

Thank you for making my point.

Everything else you've said is an attempt to redefine Omnipotence to fit within your theology and I think that is intellectually dishonest. You should feel absolutely comfortable making the above statement without qualification.

In an attempt to emulate Elder Maxwell, I'm not going to over sponsor my beliefs. I will let my idea's go forward based on their own merit and take on a life of their own.

I will say that I found it interesting no one wanted to discuss specifics. This conversation feels like a overly pedantic discussion of something that requires us to "feel after" an inspired comprehension. This required comprehension requires less definitions and more discipleship.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jason]

Making good evil or evil good would be a logical contradiction, just like making a square circle.