the existence of evil

[changed]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good

Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, but All things work together for good - including after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death;..  something good can come of this?  

If experience is so good, why do so many church leaders come from such privileged backgrounds?  If everyone suffered through similar degrees of "necessary experiences" it would seem more just - unfortunately, the vast majority of the leaders within the LDS church come from ... I hate to say it .. but white privileged backgrounds.  Their lack of experience seems at odds with the leadership roles they are supposed to fulfill.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Because the Lord's redemption for all these things was prepared before the foundation of the world in which these things take place, not only in anticipation that such things would take place but with our common consent that we would participate in such an unjust world. The horror of your examples pale against the delight of redemption and the hope we had in coming here, even the most abused....

His work and glory, the immorality and eternal life of man, has always been the aim. This redemption was prepared before this fallen world came into being, so anything / everything that happens along the way ties back to that.

The end justifies the means?  combined with only one strait and narrow path?  I agree that in some circumstances the end justifies the means, but I have a hard time with the notion of there being only one path.  Name any other problem or project (how to make an apple pie, how to build a house, how to compose a song...) through which there is only one solution, only one path.  Any good hiker knows there is always more than one way to get to the top of the mountain.  Is the path we are on really the best - least painful - route?  Isn't there another way?

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think there is a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil without abandoning the notion that God is able to intervene at all in the affairs of our planet (in any literal sense). Just my view,

 

The scriptures are full of accounts of God intervening ← that He can intervene yet very seldom does is the root of the frustration of His apparent sins of omission.  

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking for Joseph in his unique circumstances that those ideas meant something to him uniquely.  The idea that God had told him multiple times to reclaim Zion and despite multiple "promises" from God, they failed.  Perhaps the idea that it will all be for your experience, and that suffering is only temporary, but there is a greater reward in the future, those ideas were compelling to Joseph and other religious believers throughout history.

Personally, I find a lot of peace now that I don't have a strong believe in the afterlife.  If there is an afterlife, I hope it will be a good existence, but you'd think that this loss of believe would paralyze someone, but really its been a relief in a lot of ways.  

As for the doctrine, I see some negatives to the idea that God will make things right in the end.  It kind of lets people off the hook in this life a little too much.  If God's going to fix things eventually then people can rest a little easier about the injustices in this life, God will eventually fix it, or people can have that false sense of security that some authors in the scriptures warn about.  I'm just not convinced the idea of eternal justice is very compelling or even necessary in the gospel.  

Oh, I also like the idea from Buddhism about attachment and letting go of it.  I think that goes in harmony with letting go of this need for cosmic justice, its not something we can control, so why even worry about it.  Lets worry about what we can control in this life and do our best to make it a better place.  At any rate, just some musings on my part.   

 

The Buddhist belief of letting go - of embracing indifference - is a comforting ideology for an observer to embrace, but discouraging for victims who find themselves isolated and unsupported by those around them... 

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
― Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate, Holocaust survivor, author of 57 books.

people can rest a little easier about the injustices in this life ... if they embrace Buddhism and sing "Let it go"...

 

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, its a problem for many religious traditions, the exclusivity and privilege teachings.  I think they aren't compatible with the core message of the gospel I believe in.  Its essentially tribalism, and we are called to be better.  

As for final resting place, I don't want a final resting place, no offense.  I've even commented many times how I'm not likely to go into a full retirement when I get to that age in life, because I like to be busy, I like to do, I like to accomplish, its wired into me.  I think there is some truth to the critiques about religion being developed to give people comfort about how to cope with death.  Since I can't know whether any kind of existence continues after this life, I'm just focused on this life, one day at a time.  That gives me hope, I don't feel like God has rewards and punishments waiting in a future life. 

 

I like the idea of contemplating what heaven should be, and I like to be busy too.  I actually get depressed on Fridays, and love my Mondays.  

What does everyone want heaven to be?  Without regurgitating preconceived notions of it, just for you personally, if you could define it yourself - call it wishful thinking,  what end state would be worth all the pain and suffering of this world?

Heaven of course would be a place with no evil - but then for me this would include the past, present, and future.  Once committed, evil is never fully erased, which makes heaven an impossible state to me...

 

 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

And He afflicted the chosen people repeatedly, and told them if they weren't afflicted, they would forget Him. Thus, His Chosen people became slaves in Egypt, were attacked and hauled off by the Assyrians and Babylonians, and Romans. Etc. So despite being "chosen" it wasn't necessarily an easy life.

I don't believe God's purpose is to make everything smooth and easy for us.

The issue for the Lord is how can I teach all these spirits to be more like me? The garden of Eden story teaches an integral part of His solution. We must fall.

Gen 3:22 22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If we remain in a protected heavenly abode we cannot learn how to overcome our own selfishness nor how to help others overcome evil. We cannot lead others to the good if there is no bad. Hence we cannot learn how God came to know evil and overcame it.

There is something about allowing us to struggle that teaches us through experience. It teaches us how to help our own kids through the trials of life, Indeed, it seems God gives His primary leaders the most responsibility to lead others through the hard times. Thus, they often get the biggest trials of anyone. When these people are blaming God for the trial and hardship, they are flunking the test so to speak. They won't get chosen as a leader.

We must fall?

Jesus did not need to fall.... He struggled, but his educational experience did not involve having to sin.  

God's current leaders do not seem to be the people who have been through the greatest hardships...

Edited August 2, 2017 by changed

[Robert F. Smith]

Unlike gods, we don't view these matters sub specie aeternitatis, but we do imagine that the horrors of Earthlife are permanent and more extreme than any other possible horror.  Books are written about Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, but all explanations seem to equivocate.

Yet, even in celestial realms, there is evil and battle, winners and losers, with even one-third of the hosts of heaven consigned to the horror of Outer Darkness.  Free agency and the Law of Opposites make that unavoidable.  We just need to own it as an essential part of existence.  There is no stasis.  Only dynamic eternity.  We need to stop whining and get with the program.

[changed]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unlike gods, we don't view these matters sub specie aeternitatis, but we do imagine that the horrors of Earthlife are permanent and more extreme than any other possible horror.  Books are written about Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, but all explanations seem to equivocate.

Yet, even in celestial realms, there is evil and battle, winners and losers, with even one-third of the hosts of heaven consigned to the horror of Outer Darkness.  Free agency and the Law of Opposites make that unavoidable.  We just need to own it as an essential part of existence.  There is no stasis.  Only dynamic eternity.  We need to stop whining and get with the program.

It's more than just "getting with the program"... Some here believe they too will become Gods, their goal is to be an author of the program, not just partaker in it.

If you were given the freedom to be the author of the program, what program would you institute?  

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, changed said:

The scriptures are full of accounts of God intervening ← that He can intervene yet very seldom does is the root of the frustration of His apparent sins of omission.  

Yes, and that's the problem. Of course that does not mean God actually intervenes, only that religious communities have believed this to be true for centuries.

[Maidservant]

Here is number four.

Each person (who is here for this reason--there may be other reasons) MUST pass through their "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" moment. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL INITIATION, and, again, WE WANTED THIS INITIATION.

Someone mentioned about being educated enough to bypass the suffering.  But the suffering IS the education (there is no other way). 

The purpose of Earth life is not to "be good, get a gold star" nor to "get a nice crib in the afterlife".  There is no reward or condemnation (except having to be our own dern self), rather there is KNOWLEDGE, the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.  "To know God" is not to know ecstasy or victory.  "To know God" is to get nailed to a cross, bound to an altar, set to sea in a barge with no light (or, a little from a stone!).  Only Gods have this knowledge.  You have been inducted into secret, sacred knowledge (from the point of view of the previous life and the entry into this life).  It is not knowledge that can be told or handed you.  You must EXPERIENCE.  The oil must be your OWN in your vessel.  No one except those who have BEEN to an Earth passage 'get it'.  It can't be told, and it can't be understood; to beings who only know light, love, freedom, integrity--the children of God that we were.

When a human passes through their "My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" and passes this test (test, think initiation again, ordeal, quest), then they become independent, their eyes open, overcomers, all things subject to them, and not subject to anything.  Independent means that even if God himself forsakes you, you will continue in love, as God, because you CHOOSE to do so from within your own self and by your own authority.

In order to have the Forsaken initiation, you actually have to have it.  You have to be forsaken.  It can't be pretend.   Thus, the necessity of forgetting.  Otherwise, we would be able to see that it (Earth life) is a ritual established for certain purposes; and we would see that there is no corner of the multi-metaverse without love and God.  Even in this Earth life, so much of the love pours in!! Impossible to escape!! (Yay!)  But there has to be enough pretend so that it isn't pretend; it's very real to us.  So that we can be independent, a High Priest(ess).  A Father, a Mother.

You cannot be TOLD how to have all things (including "evil") subject to you.  You have to LIVE it.  It has to be drawn out of you. You have to be made or created that.  That's what we are doing: becoming created, a new creature, born again. You have to actually become the subject-er.  If someone else does it for you, it actually hasn't been done at all.  Only you must do it for yourself.

Again, this kind of experience is not the norm in the larger eternal life experience.  It has been purged from there, aeons ago; and is only available by application, preparation, worthiness, only available in very specific, veiled worlds, like this one.  Only those who have been to hell(Earth), know what it is like.  And it can't be spoken of.  I mean, you could try . . . but language wouldn't really cover it.

I'm sorry to not be answering questions directly, but the kind of questions we ask sometimes constrict the kind of answers that can be given.  So I'm just sharing what I know thus far.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

If you were given the freedom to be the author of the program, what program would you institute?  

I wrote the following in 2012:

= = =

I was thinking how nice it would be -- daydreaming -- if I was the ruler (queen) of a kingdom and could provide for my people: hospitals, and education, and celebrations, and peace, and housing and so forth.

Then I could see that the children born -- there would be no point to their mortality. There would be no knowledge or struggle (knowledge comes from struggle). They would be 'acted upon' (by me) and not 'acting'. Those children born into my unutterably glorious kingdom would only know life and plenty -- which would result in ???

It is the struggle to create gardens and libraries and healing that is so sweet to the taste.

And, so, then I thought, well, the only way my people would know the happiness and satisfaction I was feeling from creating this wonderful kingdom for them would be if they were kings themselves. I thought all of this innocently and 'logically' flowing from thought to thought; when I had that realization, I then heard the Spirit say, "You get it."

Because -- very well my Father has placed me in my own sphere -- independent to act according to truth and agency -- and that I should have my own world and kingdom -- as he does. (We are as the Gods knowing good from evil.) My Father is the king that had the glorious world into which I was born. But He wanted me to be as happy as He is when He created that world for the children He loves. The only thing He could do more for us was to let us do the same for others. So I left His kingdom, and I have been given my own, and I have the opportunity to provide for those I love. The miracle, of course, is that the conditions of mortality allow that every individual has that sphere as well without truncating mine.

(I have often prayed to know the purpose of mortality, and this was (part of) the answer.)

= = =

[RevTestament]

31 minutes ago, changed said:

We must fall?

I believe we do.. We enter the world and learn the good and the bad from the tree of knowledge.

Quote

Jesus did not need to fall.... He struggled, but his educational experience did not involve having to sin.  

God's current leaders do not seem to be the people who have been through the greatest hardships...

That scripture indicates that YHWH did fall - else he wouldn't know evil. I depart from most known Church teaching here in favor of scripture, because I believe Yeshua did fall, and proved that He loved righteousness and rejected evil, and thus was begotten as the Son. So was sent to this world as the first begotten Son of the Father who had been His Christ.

John 5:19-20

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he ^aseeth the ^bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

See the King Follett discourse. However, there is also the Snow couplet:

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.”¹

^{https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng}

 

After this world when Christ sits in the throne of His glory, He will be the Father. 

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

This is why I am not trinitarian.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Does immortality and eternity have a need for a cosmic justice of some kind, I think those two concepts could be completely separate.  Even redemption, can't God just redeem someone (pay their bill).  

Everyone ends up immortal, and eternal life is a choice one makes given the Atonement that had already been prepared before the foundation of the world. So the concepts of justice and mercy were well-reconciled before the foundation of the world, we just have to learn that by experiencing their contradicting natures and their opposites, injustice and ruthlessness, and then choosing to accept their reconciliation. Those who choose to believe only in justice (and not accept the Lord's mercy) will have immortality; those who choose to believe in mercy as well as justice will have eternal life; those who choose to believe only in mercy are will have only immortality.

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, changed said:

The end justifies the means?  combined with only one strait and narrow path?  I agree that in some circumstances the end justifies the means, but I have a hard time with the notion of there being only one path.  Name any other problem or project (how to make an apple pie, how to build a house, how to compose a song...) through which there is only one solution, only one path.  Any good hiker knows there is always more than one way to get to the top of the mountain.  Is the path we are on really the best - least painful - route?  Isn't there another way?

If you know an alternative way to understand, choose and receive immortality and eternal life without experiencing their opposites, by all means go for it!

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, but All things work together for good - including after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death;..  something good can come of this?  

Yes, good does come of this.  Without allowing for affliction there would be no agency.  Without agency or affliction there could be no progression or happiness.  You cannot know the good without tasting of the evil.  By tasting the bitter we learn to appreciate the sweet that much more.  If we endure the bitter well, we will be bathed in sweet healing and restitution in a way that perhaps others cannot appreciate.    Isaiah and others spoke of the fiery furnace of affliction by which we are tried, purged, refined, purified, and forged into godhood if we endure it well.  Without affliction and overcoming, there could only be a numbness of eternal stagnancy. 

53 minutes ago, changed said:

If experience is so good, why do so many church leaders come from such privileged backgrounds?  If everyone suffered through similar degrees of "necessary experiences" it would seem more just - unfortunately, the vast majority of the leaders within the LDS church come from ... I hate to say it .. but white privileged backgrounds.  Their lack of experience seems at odds with the leadership roles they are supposed to fulfill.

Each persons experience is unique, and not all afflictions are visible to the outside world.  People are unique and thus their experiences/afflictions are also unique.  Our leaders experiences uniquely qualify them for the work they are called to do.  Other's are called to a different work with different experiences.     

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Every living creature.

I don't think you've been paying attention. It is not a problem to God, who has leveraged it from before the foundation of the world for our benefit, and so it is not a problem to every living creature under His purview.

I think Mormonism is unique in that God’s work is described as bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man per the agency of man. This means that Adam’s Fall, or mortality and a telestial life (the media for “evil”) are not problems to be solved but are necessary stages in our progression enabling us to choose the benefits of the Lord’s Atonement.

With this in mind, evil is not a problem, but an example of requisite death that brings forth life a hundredfold (John 12:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”). For example, the Restoration simply answers the Apostasy according to the eternal law of Christ’s Atonement.

We are beings of agency, and we are given Adam’s fallen world on one hand and the Lord’s redemption on the other; the choice of where and how to live is entirely ours. Viktor Frankl understood and articulated this well. The evils of death and condemnation in all their forms aren’t problems because both redemption and exaltation were established through Christ before the foundation of the world; mortal death and condemnation came into play after the world was created. The so-called problem is only a matter of limited perspective: when we make a wrong choice, that certainly creates a problem for us, but for no one else in the long run (A o F 2) – being placed (D&C 93:30) where evil exists and where we can make such a choice is not a problem.

Are we going to delve into other semantics of what a "problem" is without paying attention to this?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Every living creature.

Chlamydia, and others, actually thrive on evil.  Just sayin'  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Yes, there is potential "temporary" negative aspects of all truth and good ideas.  As you stated, we have been warned.  What more can be done?  People will ignore suffering either way, but I think studies suggest that religious people are more service and charity oriented, so I don't think your theory holds true.   

I'm not convinced these ideas are true or good though, so I wouldn't agree with your premise.  Also, I think there are mixed results on the religious people are more charity oriented when you adjust for giving to religious institutions.  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That is a misinterpretation of that principle.  By letting go of attachments to ideas, people, circumstances, etc. Buddhism is not advocating that we let go of ideas, people, circumstance, etc. all together.  No, by letting go of attachments, we give these ideas, people, and circumstances the "freedom to fulfill us without power to destroy us."  

I could be misinterpreting the principle, I'm no expert.  But it seems like it would also apply letting go of a desire for controlling a future in the next life as well, rather than wanting a higher power to make all things right in the next life.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by hope_for_things

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not convinced these ideas are true or good though, so I wouldn't agree with your premise.  

Injustice is better? Miserable suffering and deprivation with no justice or healing restitution?  The law of restoration is not true or good?   If these principles are not good or true, then I would have no reason to worship deity - he would be a cruel, cruel being.  Alma the younger explained my position pretty well here:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/41.10?lang=eng

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I could be misinterpreting the principle, I'm no expert.  But it seems like it would also apply letting go of a desire for controlling a future in the next life as well, rather than wanting a higher power to make all things right in the next life.  

I'm not sure I follow, can you elaborate?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, changed said:

The Buddhist belief of letting go - of embracing indifference - is a comforting ideology for an observer to embrace, but discouraging for victims who find themselves isolated and unsupported by those around them... 

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.”
― Elie Wiesel, Nobel Laureate, Holocaust survivor, author of 57 books.

people can rest a little easier about the injustices in this life ... if they embrace Buddhism and sing "Let it go"...

I don't think that Wiesel's use of indifference in that context is at all the same thing as the Buddhist teaching.  I'm really a novice when it comes to Buddhist teachings, maybe someone else can comment, but I think your mischaracterizing the teaching from what little I understand.  

1 hour ago, changed said:

I like the idea of contemplating what heaven should be, and I like to be busy too.  I actually get depressed on Fridays, and love my Mondays.  

What does everyone want heaven to be?  Without regurgitating preconceived notions of it, just for you personally, if you could define it yourself - call it wishful thinking,  what end state would be worth all the pain and suffering of this world?

Heaven of course would be a place with no evil - but then for me this would include the past, present, and future.  Once committed, evil is never fully erased, which makes heaven an impossible state to me...

Imagination and anticipation are two great joys of this life.  They have inherent value in and of themselves.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Everyone ends up immortal, and eternal life is a choice one makes given the Atonement that had already been prepared before the foundation of the world. So the concepts of justice and mercy were well-reconciled before the foundation of the world, we just have to learn that by experiencing their contradicting natures and their opposites, injustice and ruthlessness, and then choosing to accept their reconciliation. Those who choose to believe only in justice (and not accept the Lord's mercy) will have immortality; those who choose to believe in mercy as well as justice will have eternal life; those who choose to believe only in mercy are will have only immortality.

You're telling me things that would be taught in Sunday School 101.  I'm asking why.  Why the need for cosmic justice?  What links that to salvation at all, I don't see this as a necessary component?  Can't God just save people, you're saying we have a choice to believe in justice and not accept God's mercy that this is somehow limiting.  Sounds like a grace vs. works argument, but I'm not asking that.  

I'm asking why do we assume there needs to be a cosmic balancing of good and bad that will somehow bring justice upon all the injustices in the universe.  Why?  I'm not asking for a scripture that is interpreted as supporting this doctrine, I'm asking for an articulation of the reasoning.  

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Couldn't a more rigorous education have been used to prevent such travesties?

Oh, we had a very rigorous education. We were taught good principles and we had countless examples of prior mortal worlds. We saw and grew up in the celestial realms of our Heavenly Parents and things worked. Despite all of that, there is the very real temptation of children to believe they know better. In pre-mortality we were perhaps the spiritual equivalent of teenagers. At least one individual said, "I don't like our current system. I know how to do better," and persuaded others of his delusion.

This mortal experience is then, I believe, a continued part of our education. It is temporary, it is transitory. We, the children, are given a world to act as we would. We are free to act according to our natures -- without all those restrictions of our Heavenly Parents society. Collectively speaking, we children made one craptastic world. After this world passes its mortal phase, not one of us will be able to say that it is/was better than even the least of the worlds/societies that our species currently uses.

But that/this experience is just part of the purposes. There are also the aspects of the Atonement, personal change, obtaining and learning to use a physical body, etc. All worthy aspects in their own right and upon which others commented.

This world is one grand multi-tasked experience for us, individually and collectively.

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Injustice is better? Miserable suffering and deprivation with no justice or healing restitution?  The law of restoration is not true or good?   If these principles are not good or true, then I would have no reason to worship deity - he would be a cruel, cruel being.  Alma the younger explained my position pretty well here:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/41.10?lang=eng

Or perhaps God has no power to perform the kind of universal reconciliation that is imagined here.  In that case God is limited, not cruel.  At any rate, I can't comprehend how or why God would try to reconcile everything.  Just think about all the wrong's you've committed in this life, things you've repented of.  What is God going to do for those mistakes you've made to reconcile them.  The people you've offended and the sins of omission (missed opportunities).  How will God make all those things right on an individual minute by minute throughout the day basis.  I just don't see the point of it all.  It sounds like a fantasy to try and assuage our guilt, not a grand process to set everything right in the universe.  I just don't see the point, and I don't see how hoping for such a future state gives me any utility in this life.  

Wouldn't it be better to realize that the mistakes we make have actual consequences that won't be corrected by a supernatural force.  Maybe that will help us to try better and do more with what time we have in this life.  Maybe that will help us to recognize the impact of our choices here and how we affect others.  To me this is greater motivation for doing good, not less motivation.  Nobody is cleaning up my messes, that's my job.  We can help each other too, thats another benefit to this kind of thinking.  Helping someone else has real value for that person in a tangible way, not a future imagined reward kind of way.  Anyway...  just some thoughts. 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're telling me things that would be taught in Sunday School 101.  I'm asking why.  Why the need for cosmic justice?  What links that to salvation at all, I don't see this as a necessary component?  Can't God just save people, you're saying we have a choice to believe in justice and not accept God's mercy that this is somehow limiting.  Sounds like a grace vs. works argument, but I'm not asking that.  

I'm asking why do we assume there needs to be a cosmic balancing of good and bad that will somehow bring justice upon all the injustices in the universe.  Why?  I'm not asking for a scripture that is interpreted as supporting this doctrine, I'm asking for an articulation of the reasoning.  

While I’ve only seen the term “cosmic justice” used in the sense of “social justice,” I will take a shot at what I think you’re referring to.

Without a scriptural or religious reference, my baseline attitude would not be one of assuming a need for all injustices throughout the universe to be ameliorated (why bother with that?) but only of wanting it for myself on my own terms. And inasmuch as I’m a nice guy, seek justice for others, on my own (and typically communally shared) terms. Being an intuitive type of guy, my reasoning is hard to articulate but I think it follows the same principle as learning from experience that a cut will heal over, so not only do I want it to heal, I expect it will, and I make sure that it does (or otherwise compensate); all this so that I can resume my activities of survival and gain.

Not that I would recommend living  like that. Too much like a SJW.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

While I’ve only seen the term “cosmic justice” used in the sense of “social justice,” I will take a shot at what I think you’re referring to.

 

Without a scriptural or religious reference, my baseline attitude would not be one of assuming a need for all injustices throughout the universe to be ameliorated (why bother with that?) but only of wanting it for myself on my own terms. And inasmuch as I’m a nice guy, seek justice for others, on my own (and typically communally shared) terms. Being an intuitive type of guy, my reasoning is hard to articulate but I think it follows the same principle as learning from experience that a cut will heal over, so not only do I want it to heal, I expect it will, and I make sure that it does (or otherwise compensate); all this so that I can resume my activities of survival and gain.

 

Not that I would recommend living  like that. Too much like a SJW.

 

I think you get the cosmic justice right, but that is what others are arguing for is that this concept is necessary and connected to salvation/exaltation in the next life.  I just don't see why its necessary.  I much more agree with your principle of consequences and learning from experience because that is something we've all experienced and makes sense to us.  Not sure what an SJW is though.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Or perhaps God has no power to perform the kind of universal reconciliation that is imagined here.  In that case God is limited, not cruel.  At any rate, I can't comprehend how or why God would try to reconcile everything.  Just think about all the wrong's you've committed in this life, things you've repented of.  What is God going to do for those mistakes you've made to reconcile them.  The people you've offended and the sins of omission (missed opportunities).  How will God make all those things right on an individual minute by minute throughout the day basis.  I just don't see the point of it all.  It sounds like a fantasy to try and assuage our guilt, not a grand process to set everything right in the universe.  I just don't see the point, and I don't see how hoping for such a future state gives me any utility in this life.  

If there is a God and no afterlife (as you believe), what is the point of life for those who have no control over their suffering and circumstance?  Some children are neglected, starved, abused, sold into the sex trade, drugged, and murdered (that **** happens).   You don't see the utility for that child in believing in the restoration/restitution/justice/atonement/afterlife?  Oh, there is utility!  It doesn't have to be that severe to see the utility.  Many who suffer physical disability find utility in the restoration of their body.  Many who suffer from emotional/mental illness find utility in believing that they will be made whole and strengthened through their affliction, which gives them courage to carry on.  Those who have had their freedoms stripped from them find utility in the hope of the restoration of freedom.  Many people who have had their children taken from them find utility in reunification.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Wouldn't it be better to realize that the mistakes we make have actual consequences that won't be corrected by a supernatural force.   

Oh there are consequences for our choices in this life, and the next.  Some of those consequences don't have to be eternal consequences through the atonement however.  That is the only difference.  Mormonism teaches accountability.  We are just as aware of the consequences of our actions as anybody else.  It is wrong to suggest that Mormons are more prone to be less ethical because we believe in repentance.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 Wouldn't it be better to realize that the mistakes we make have actual consequences that won't be corrected by a supernatural force.  Maybe that will help us to try better and do more with what time we have in this life.  Maybe that will help us to recognize the impact of our choices here and how we affect others.  To me this is greater motivation for doing good, not less motivation.  

Statistics show no evidence that believing makes a person less aware of the consequences of their actions in this life, or that they are less motivated to do good as you suggest.  

Edited August 2, 2017 by pogi

[changed]

Some quotes I recently ran across that I liked:

“Some uncomprehended law holds us at a point of contradiction where we have no choice, where we do not like that which we love, where good and bad are inseparable partners impossible to tell apart, and where we – heart broken and ecstatic-can only resolve the conflict by blindly taking it into our hearts.  This used to be called being in the hands of God.  Has anyone any better words to describe it?” -  Florida Scott-Maxwell

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves… Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them.  And the point is, to live everything.  Live the questions now.  Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.” – Rilke

 

 

 

 

[rpn]

Mortals cannot know what is best for each person and therefore what is wrong for them.   Lots of times things that people perceive as burdens, eventually they understand were blessings they merely had not recognized as such.   And why do we think that "the pampered LDS kid" is more blessed and better off than the starving refugee child?  If that starving child's spirit didn't need to live a long life because they were the strongest spirit, then a short life, even if it contained physical hardship leading to an early return might well be the more just outcome.

We tend to perceive things darkly when we ought to understand that we simply cannot have any idea about whether our notion of justice is how He sees it.

And since when does Satan have control over the food supplies.   He might get control of an army that makes growing crops difficult.   But the condition of starving isn't inherrently evil, however much we'd like to protect all from it.

Edited August 3, 2017 by rpn

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, changed said:

It's more than just "getting with the program"... Some here believe they too will become Gods, their goal is to be an author of the program, not just partaker in it.

If you were given the freedom to be the author of the program, what program would you institute?  

The nature of the universe and of natural law give us and God only limited choices.  We ourselves are so limited in nature that our programs are likewise limited.  I just don't see how fallible beings with true free choice can abide the test without error, thus requiring the intervention of a Redeemer -- based solely on natural law, even though that Redeemer acts out of love and compassion.

Perhaps you can conceive of a better plan.  I imagine a good scifi plot could opt for a very different plan and outcome.  But could it pass close logical muster?

[changed]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Mortals cannot know what is best for each person and therefore what is wrong for them.   Lots of times things that people perceive as burdens, eventually they understand were blessings they merely had not recognized as such.   And why do we think that "the pampered LDS kid" is more blessed and better off than the starving refugee child?  If that starving child's spirit didn't need to live a long life because they were the strongest spirit, then a short life, even if it contained physical hardship leading to an early return might well be the more just outcome.

We tend to perceive things darkly when we ought to understand that we simply cannot have any idea about whether our notion of justice is how He sees it.

And since when does Satan have control over the food supplies.   He might get control of an army that makes growing crops difficult.   But the condition of starving isn't inherrently evil, however much we'd like to protect all from it.

 

What is best for each person... what about the people who are unable to handle their experiences?  what about the people who are not able to make it to the Celestial kingdom?  The questions would eternally swirl - of what the outcome would have been if someone's experiences had been different.  Perhaps one of the people who makes it might not have had such a cheery outcome if they were more severely tested... or perhaps someone who did not make it would have if raised in sunnier circumstances...  If everyone was given just the right experiences to get them to the Celestial kingdom then I would be agreeable with the above soln.  Without the assurance of the salvation for all, the conclusion would be that correct experiences were not chosen for each spirit - that the plan was unjust, and not merciful.  

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The nature of the universe and of natural law give us and God only limited choices.  We ourselves are so limited in nature that our programs are likewise limited.  I just don't see how fallible beings with true free choice can abide the test without error, thus requiring the intervention of a Redeemer -- based solely on natural law, even though that Redeemer acts out of love and compassion.

Perhaps you can conceive of a better plan.  I imagine a good scifi plot could opt for a very different plan and outcome.  But could it pass close logical muster?

That some live better lives than others - are subjected to less severe tests than others... the less severe option, with a gentle educational approach for all seems the better soln to me.