Problem with the LDS solution to the Problem of Evil?

[Jason]

If it cannot be enjoyed without agency than that is a law that God cannot change OR he chose that law in which case he prefers evil to the absence of agency.

Both are essentially true. God cannot allow us to enjoy exaltation without the exercise of our agency because it is a logical contradiction. Agency is required for exaltation by definition.

And God does prefer the existence of the possibility of evil to the absence of agency because agency cannot exist without the possibility of evil - again, it would be a logical contradiction to have both agency and no possibility of chosing evil.

So God remains omnipotent except for being incapable of enacting logical contradictions, like I said.

[Luigi]

Both are essentially true. God cannot allow us to enjoy exaltation without the exercise of our agency because it is a logical contradiction. Agency is required for exaltation by definition.

If you load the definition of exaltation as requiring agency I suppose that is true. You can always make a definition of exaltation that doesn't require agency. An omnipotent being could give everyone the ability to enjoy ongoing happiness and fulfillment without allowing them to choose 'evil' in the sense of being capable of destroying the happiness and fulfillment of others.

[Jason]

If you load the definition of exaltation as requiring agency I suppose that is true. You can always make a definition of exaltation that doesn't require agency.

Is it "loading" the definition of a circle to say that it has to be circular? Would a definition of a cricle as "rectangular" be a valid definition?

An omnipotent being could give everyone the ability to enjoy ongoing happiness and fulfillment without allowing them to choose 'evil' in the sense of being capable of destroying the happiness and fulfillment of others.

Correction: "A being capable of enacting logical impossibilities..." not what we both agreed an omnipotent being was.

Also, I don't believe anyone has the power to ultimately destroy the happiness and fulfillment of others. They might be able to destroy their happiness and fulfillment during this lifetime, but the influence of their actions is ultimately limited.

[mfbukowski]

If you load the definition of exaltation as requiring agency I suppose that is true. You can always make a definition of exaltation that doesn't require agency. An omnipotent being could give everyone the ability to enjoy ongoing happiness and fulfillment without allowing them to choose 'evil' in the sense of being capable of destroying the happiness and fulfillment of others.

This is silly

A basic tenet of the entire free-will determinism issue is that one who does not have free will cannot be meritorious or blameworthy.

A portion of our legal system is based on the idea that someone who is mentally disabled or "insane" and thus has their agency impaired, cannot be convicted of a crime.

On the other side, if someone trips and falls by accident on a live grenade and saves his buddies, he is not going to get the medal of honor. Praise and blame require agency and a decision to act.

Only those capable of "merit" can be exalted.