Happy Good Friday / Easter

[Keq82]

On March 26, 2016 at 11:02 AM, 3DOP said:

flameburns, hi.

Thank you very much for the article. It definitely made the meaning of the passage clearer for me.

But it would be curious to me if a Latter-day Saint would be experiencing the psychological and philosophical difficulties that Dostoevsky wrestled with as a faithful adherent to the teachings of Russian Orthodoxy. When discussions occur refuting non-LDS beliefs in creation ex nihilo, LDS arguments seem apparently irrefutable, not unlike those given by Ivan. Mormons successfully escape Dostoevsky's dilemma, and Ivan's arguments, in a very different way. I will explain below why, for many years here at this board, as a Roman Catholic, I have conceded that LDS beliefs about God and creation eliminate the problem Mr. Forbes describes in the first line of his essay:

Such an omnipotent God, becomes responsible for evil and suffering. Is not this essentially what Ivan is saying? Such a God cannot be good. We have nothing less here in the book than what we always have when Catholics and Mormons debate. Mystery vs. Logic. Dostoevsky escapes the problem, as do I, by appealing to Mystery. That which he loves is Christ, and he subjects his intellect (mind) to his will (what Mormons call "agency" and Dostoevsky calls "heart"). He in effect chooses to tell his mind to be quiet and humble because it cannot grasp the subject matter as the will or heart can. Such a view accepts that we do not have adequate faculties to assure us that we may be confident that omnipotence, free will, and suffering are incompatible with a "perfectly benevolent God".  

On the other hand, I have gained the impression that the Mormons I have met here at this board may blithely reject the "problems" that Dostoevsky faced because the God in which they believe is not finished progressing. Neither is He omnipotent in the traditional sense. By and large, it seems like Mormons ordinarily accept and even use, the same arguments against the God who creates ex nihilo, as those presented by Ivan and by modern philosophy without any concerns. By believing in a God that creates out of pre-existent matter, it is not difficult to extrapolate to a God who, at least for the time being, is not responsible for evil, and is striving to eradicate suffering. This is why I have conceded that "theodicy" is not a problem for LDS.

I have noted with understandable satisfaction that you are now Catholic, flameburns. Perhaps you might have some insights about my fallible, and "from the window", as it were, impressions of LDS views on this matter. I would welcome yours or any other criticisms about my observations here. As I see it, Dostoevsky, as an LDS, would have never grappled with the problems that made him write the Brothers Karamozov.

3DOP

 

Hey 3DOP,

I'm LDS but theodicy is a problem for me. I don't adopt the traditional view most LDS members do--that's probably why I enjoy authors like Dostoyevsky so much.