the existence of evil

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, changed said:

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.  

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.

Perhaps, but will it meet the demands of natural law, with which God himself must comply?

[Maidservant]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

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 only way to traditionally reconcile this is to posit a God who can see into hearts perfectly and therefore 'judge' perfectly (although this statement does not represent my own worldview).   Whose faith is greater--those who push a small boulder and get it done; or those who push a mountain or two around all day long, all lifetime long and yet it hasn't moved yet?  I would say the latter.

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.

God agrees with you.  His plan involves more gentleness.  It's just that mankind refuses to follow it.  Ten Commandments, anyone?  I think God made himself clear at that point at what kind of suffering he doesn't allow.

 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Some buggers is born bad

[Gray]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

That might be true, until you confront the many and various accounts of dramatic divine intervention within LDS canon. And the need to be tested can't fully account for the level of suffering in the world.

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

That might be true, until you confront the many and various accounts of dramatic divine intervention within LDS canon. And the need to be tested can't fully account for the level of suffering in the world.

According to the scriptures, existence can be affirmed only upon the eternal principle of there being diametric opposition in all things. This means that In order for perfect goodness to exist, there must be an allowance for infinite evil to exist; in order for for perfect kindness and compassion to exist, there must be an allowance for the the worst possible manifestations of cruelty and callous indifference; in order for perfect divine love to exist, there must be an allowence for the worst possible manifestations of utterly implacable hate. The essential framework of diametric opposition in all things can only be sustained if intelligences are given free rein to choose and act within the full spectrum of choices oppositional reality makes available to them. Lehi makes it perfectly clear that unless the framework of infinite and eternal opposition in all things is maintained, and the free will of intelligences to make any and all choices within the realm of diametric opposition is also maintained, there can be no existence and no God. God must deal with reality as is or he and all things would vanish away. God's provision for making sense of it all is to bring forth the atonement of Christ, a sacrifice of perfect divine love enables all things work our for the best in the end.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

According to the scriptures, existence can be affirmed only upon the eternal principle of there being diametric opposition in all things. This means that In order for perfect goodness to exist, there must be an allowance for infinite evil to exist; in order for for perfect kindness and compassion to exist, there must be an allowance for the the worst possible manifestations of cruelty and callous indifference; in order for perfect divine love to exist, there must be an allowence for the worst possible manifestations of utterly implacable hate. The essential framework of diametric opposition in all things can only be sustained if intelligences are given free rein to choose and act within the full spectrum of choices oppositional reality makes available to them. Lehi makes it perfectly clear that unless the framework of infinite and eternal opposition in all things is maintained, and the free will of intelligences to make any and all choices within the realm of diametric opposition is also maintained, there can be no existence and no God. God must deal with reality as is or he and all things would vanish away. God's provision for making sense of it all is to bring forth the atonement of Christ, a sacrifice of perfect divine love enables all things work our for the best in the end.

But in LDS theology, God can and does interfere in the free will of evil actors to mitigate their effects upon the innocent. So that means God CAN intervene without destroying his plan, but for some reason chooses not to. So the problem of evil remains.

Your idea of "infinite and eternal opposition in all things" is a creative solution, but not a phrase found in LDS scriptures.

[stemelbow]

This is one of the fine topics for us to discuss, mostly because no matter how we slice it, we lose.  We simply can't figure it out, in my experience.

Is it that God can't intervene?  if He is powerless to do anything, then how would the Savior be?  How would the restoration ever be?  Do we really have no bones thrown at us at all to work with?

Is it He can't because doing so would violate eternal laws in a way we can't understand?  If so, then why is it He does or has intervened on occasion?  Is he allowed to at certain times and places for the sake of the eternally created plan that works within laws only He knows? 

Is it He does intervene occasionally, thus leaving the bulk of evil to be played out, ruining perhaps a majority of people's existence?  if so, then does His choice about who He intervenes for and helps, factor into whether He's wholly benevolent or not?  If He's not completely benevolent, then what is He?  Does He have others whom He works for? 

 

[Bobbieaware]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

But in LDS theology, God can and does interfere in the free will of evil actors to mitigate their effects upon the innocent. So that means God CAN intervene without destroying his plan, but for some reason chooses not to. So the problem of evil remains.

Your idea of "infinite and eternal opposition in all things" is a creative solution, but not a phrase found in LDS scriptures.

Infinite and eternal opposition is implicit because there cannot be anything more infinitely and eternally opposed than God and Satan. That opposition is so diametric and complete that in infinite and eternal sacrifice of perfect love was required to neutralize the inexorably destructive power of Satan.

A manifestation of the principle of opposition in all things is that God chooses to both intervene and not intervene based upon the circumstances of each individual situation. In addition, if he never intervened, the faithful the faithful would lose faith and hope, and if he always intervened there would be no spiritual growth. In his perfect wisdom and omniscience, knows when to intervene and not intervene so as to not disturb the balance of opposition in all things working and keep all things working for the ultimate good.

I believe you don't want to acknowledge these obvious principles because you enjoy being a skeptic. 😉

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

According to the scriptures, existence can be affirmed only upon the eternal principle of there being diametric opposition in all things. This means that In order for perfect goodness to exist, there must be an allowance for infinite evil to exist; in order for for perfect kindness and compassion to exist, there must be an allowance for the the worst possible manifestations of cruelty and callous indifference; in order for perfect divine love to exist, there must be an allowence for the worst possible manifestations of utterly implacable hate. The essential framework of diametric opposition in all things can only be sustained if intelligences are given free rein to choose and act within the full spectrum of choices oppositional reality makes available to them. Lehi makes it perfectly clear that unless the framework of infinite and eternal opposition in all things is maintained, and the free will of intelligences to make any and all choices within the realm of diametric opposition is also maintained, there can be no existence and no God. God must deal with reality as is or he and all things would vanish away. God's provision for making sense of it all is to bring forth the atonement of Christ, a sacrifice of perfect divine love enables all things work our for the best in the end.

Good point.  Some philosophers call this "dialectical thinking".

Science says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   It is not quite the same, but certainly that is a good way to visualize it.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

SJW is a social justice warrior.

I can explain how justice is connected to salvation and exaltation in the next life as an extension of my non-religious reference, as follows:

We all find it necessary (want) to have that which is lost restored. When that is accompanied by the sense that the loss is undeserved or accidental (or merited and intentional for that matter), we get into the necessariness of justice to satisfy those demands.

In my example, salvation is nothing more than an optimized extension of “healing” or “survival” and eternal life is nothing more than an extension of “activity” and “gain.” My body’s capacity to heal its wounds was prepared from before the foundation of “my world” – genetically passed on to my zygotic self from countless generations, before the foundation of my parents', great-great-great-parents', etc.worlds. The Lord’s redemption is merely an extension of that (the redemption prepared from before the foundation of the world, and so on). My desire for justice (and mercy) developed only after experiencing loss and injustice as a child (and how many times have I asked a boss not to fire me because of an injury, or for injuring someone else?).

The same principle of consequences and learning from experience can also be an emotional and spiritual matter – guilty conscience, desire to keep our loved ones around us, vengeance, altruism, etc. Religious justice is only an extension of the same basic things we see in the non-religious world, but of course it only applies if one accepts a “next life.” If justice is necessary for personal and societal satisfaction in a secular sense, it is necessary for personal and societal satisfaction in the spiritual sense.

That would be the rationale, but religion isn’t entirely rational (nor should it be); this gets into the Alma 32 dynamics between faith (typically considered to be an irrational basis for action) and knowledge (typically considered to be the rational basis for action).

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

That might be true, until you confront the many and various accounts of dramatic divine intervention within LDS canon. And the need to be tested can't fully account for the level of suffering in the world.

You'll have to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about before I can try to make sense of this.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Infinite and eternal opposition is implicit because there cannot be anything more infinitely and eternally opposed than God and Satan. That opposition is so diametric and complete that in infinite and eternal sacrifice of perfect love was required to neutralize the inexorably destructive power of Satan.

Again, your interpretation, which is interesting and unique, but not something I'm familiar with in LDS thought generally.

 

Quote

A manifestation of the principle of opposition in all things is that God chooses to both intervene and not intervene based upon the circumstances of each individual situation. In addition, if he never intervened, the faithful the faithful would lose faith and hope, and if he always intervened there would be no spiritual growth. In his perfect wisdom and omniscience, knows when to intervene and not intervene so as to not disturb the balance of opposition in all things working and keep all things working for the ultimate good.

 

It's very easy to imagine scenarios where God could intervene more without destroying agency or limiting growth. There is a great deal of pointless, destructive suffering on earth - much of it unrelated to anyone's choices, much of it resulting in damage, not growth.

 

 

Quote

I believe you don't want to acknowledge these obvious principles because you enjoy being a skeptic. 😉

I believe you don't want to acknowledge the problems with your solution because you enjoy being a skeptic.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You'll have to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about before I can try to make sense of this.

Our conversations are not so sublimely rewarding that I feel the need to jump through hoops in order for you to consider my comments worthy of a response. Either engage or don't, it's entirely up to you.

[Maidservant]

It would be hard for me to be certain on this without interviewing every single person that ever lived on the planet, but I am slowly growing to the conclusion that God always intervenes.  He always finds you in some way, at some time; and usually multiple times.  I don't think this intervention always come as "complete removal".  It's more like--rising in resurrection after the crucifixion and tomb. 

But I think about some of my amazing examples.  Imaculee Ibigaza (misspelled I'm sure) had to hide in a bathroom with several other people during the Rwanda genocide for a three month period.  The rest of her family were murdered.  Is God there in this, or is he not?  Maybe it's a choice in how to see it.  Is it God that put her in a bathroom (bad), or is it God that put her in a bathroom (amazing miracle)?  (Those aren't the only two choices of course, but I think you see what I mean.)  I think about Nelson Mandela.  Was there God in his thirty years of prison?  In his life? 

God intervenes on a personal, individual level.  Always.  That's what I'm coming to.  But on a macro level, we see the coming and going of unresolved things. 

Of course, not everyone sees God IN the intervention.  Like the guy who prayed for help from God to break his fall, and then when his shirt caught on a branch, he said to God, "Never mind, there's a branch here."  So it depends on how God is understood and if one chooses to see God in the wind of circumstance and spirit.  

Also perhaps it's a bit condescending to say that just because someone lives in a hut and has no shoes that they are suffering.  It may be somewhat challenging (challenge and struggle is different than suffering)--or maybe it isn't, maybe life is easier and more happiness is possible to creep in with less material things (*I* haven't come to the yet!!! Ha ha ha).  Maybe the teenager who has his own car, every electronic, tons of food, is cutting himself every night to stave off the pain of spirit he feels.  And, trust me, God IS going to meet him somewhere in that.  God is going to meet him at the bottom, not at the top. 

We have to remember that our God is a wounded, humiliated, socially unacceptable God.  The superhuman God is not really Christian; that's Greek.

[RevTestament]

19 hours 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.

I again disagree here. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the sons of perdition do not inherit immortality. Nor do the spirits who did not come to earth as man. Immortality would mean they keep their bodies, but D &C says Satan is able to destroy their souls. I see you are giving your spiel on grace and mercy here. Although I find it interesting, I don't see any scriptural references. What scripture leads you to believe that eternal life will go only to those who believe on justice and mercy? Is this just an intuitive claim? Do those in the telestial kingdom inherit eternal life?

[Maidservant]

Just now read a beautiful quote by Richard Rohr (Franciscan Friar):

"Pain is physical discomfort, but suffering comes from our resistance, denial, and sense of injustice or wrongness about that pain. Pain is the rent we pay for being human, some say; but suffering is usually optional. "

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Just now read a beautiful quote by Richard Rohr (Franciscan Friar):

"Pain is physical discomfort, but suffering comes from our resistance, denial, and sense of injustice or wrongness about that pain. Pain is the rent we pay for being human, some say; but suffering is usually optional. "

I love this quote.  I have often heard that God measure people by their pain. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I again disagree here. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the sons of perdition do not inherit immortality. Nor do the spirits who did not come to earth as man. Immortality would mean they keep their bodies, but D &C says Satan is able to destroy their souls. I see you are giving your spiel on grace and mercy here. Although I find it interesting, I don't see any scriptural references. What scripture leads you to believe that eternal life will go only to those who believe on justice and mercy? Is this just an intuitive claim? Do those in the telestial kingdom inherit eternal life?

Not sure if I understand your questions, but here’s a try: My understanding is that those in the telestial kingdom have salvation (from physical death, or immortality) but do not have eternal life (a fullness of spiritual life with God). Mosiah 5:15 is one of many that makes the connection between eternal life and belief in the justice and mercy of God, upon whom we must believe (and therefore know and act, per Alma 32) before we can receive this extent of grace. According to the concepts of “fullness” and “degree” the fulness of the Father (eternal life) calls for a corresponding “fulness” of belief.

I don’t see where I’m saying anything about mercy and grace – please explain.

My comments were limited to three scenarios for those in mortality who obtain immortality (which would exclude the rebellious pre-mortal spirits and arguably the sons of perdition): 1) Those who choose to believe only in justice; 2) those who choose to believe in both mercy as well as justice; and 3) those who choose to believe only in mercy. I did not address the fourth scenario, which is rejecting belief in both God’s justice and mercy. The sons of perdition fall into this fourth scenario as mortals with the attendant condemnation found in scripture. The rebellious spirits cast down to the earth would be addressed in a separate, pre-mortal scenario that recognizes their rejection of God’s justice and mercy, and thus were not considered in my post.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Maidservant said:

It would be hard for me to be certain on this without interviewing every single person that ever lived on the planet, but I am slowly growing to the conclusion that God always intervenes.  He always finds you in some way, at some time; and usually multiple times.  I don't think this intervention always come as "complete removal".  It's more like--rising in resurrection after the crucifixion and tomb. 

But I think about some of my amazing examples.  Imaculee Ibigaza (misspelled I'm sure) had to hide in a bathroom with several other people during the Rwanda genocide for a three month period.  The rest of her family were murdered.  Is God there in this, or is he not?  Maybe it's a choice in how to see it.  Is it God that put her in a bathroom (bad), or is it God that put her in a bathroom (amazing miracle)?  (Those aren't the only two choices of course, but I think you see what I mean.)  I think about Nelson Mandela.  Was there God in his thirty years of prison?  In his life? 

God intervenes on a personal, individual level.  Always.  That's what I'm coming to.  But on a macro level, we see the coming and going of unresolved things. 

Of course, not everyone sees God IN the intervention.  Like the guy who prayed for help from God to break his fall, and then when his shirt caught on a branch, he said to God, "Never mind, there's a branch here."  So it depends on how God is understood and if one chooses to see God in the wind of circumstance and spirit.  

Also perhaps it's a bit condescending to say that just because someone lives in a hut and has no shoes that they are suffering.  It may be somewhat challenging (challenge and struggle is different than suffering)--or maybe it isn't, maybe life is easier and more happiness is possible to creep in with less material things (*I* haven't come to the yet!!! Ha ha ha).  Maybe the teenager who has his own car, every electronic, tons of food, is cutting himself every night to stave off the pain of spirit he feels.  And, trust me, God IS going to meet him somewhere in that.  God is going to meet him at the bottom, not at the top. 

We have to remember that our God is a wounded, humiliated, socially unacceptable God.  The superhuman God is not really Christian; that's Greek.

I agree that He intervenes, far more often than I think we give Him credit for. I think D&C 93:30 offers some insight into God's role in expanding and contracting our spheres as He deems fit to ensure our existence, which includes ensuring the integrity of eternal law. "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." We are independent only as far as God has placed us, and when agency or circumstances betray that (in His good judgement), He will intervene. Otherwise He does not. Whether we understand or have faith in His reasoning is another matter.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

This problem stems from a posture or attitude of earth-centeredness, it's an obscure view. 

Have we forgotten that the Eternal Civilization existed BEFORE this probation? Have we forgotten why this earth was formed in the first place? 

This earth life is a flash in the pan. Our lives here are not the only existence. To wonder why God does not intervene is self-centered and demonstrates a deficit of wisdom regarding the Plan of Salvation and the formation of gods. 

I don't believe it's appropriate to talk about the pre-mortal existence in regards to who did what and what they deserve. As far as I know there's nothing in the revelations regarding this.

Everyone is where they ought to be, and that's God's business. To quote King Benjamin "... man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." - Mosiah 4:9

Do you suppose the everlasting God has made a mistake? Do you suppose that he did not already know every single affliction and pain and suffering that would come upon his children while in this condition? Do you doubt the wisdom of Him who is perfect and knows all things?

Do you doubt the just judgment of him who suffered all things that man might have a righteous and empathetic judgment?

And lastly, I don't think the purpose of this life is to join the church (though for some it is their purpose to be in the church or join the church,) though it would be a blessing to all who except.

I think it is wrong to view the world in terms of privileges and inequities. The privilege is to be the beneficiaries of God's plan. Consider Adam and Eve, Moses, Job, the apostles, Joseph Smith, Jesus. It seems earthly comforts are irrelevant.  

The way I see it, the purpose of this life is to gain experience and knowledge of the way things are. It creates an environment where we can weigh and contrast the differences between good and bad, light and dark, righteousness and wickedness. Right and wrong are inalienable and simply are, one could not be made into the other. All of which are skewed while in God's presence. For we can't know contrast while in his presence if we have not already experienced contrast. 

 

This is beautiful.  Basically how I see it.

I don't know, but I found this song this week, and all I can think of is Jesus and me . . .

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

So it seems I can't edit, great. The quotation is the latest.

You will when you hit 25 posts, also be able to start your own thread in main forum.

[BlueDreams]

On 8/2/2017 at 10:49 AM, changed said:

I know this is an old dead horse to start beating, but it is the reason my grandfather left the church and the reason a few of my other acquaintances have left - why someone I know is currently leaving, so I need to revisit it.  Yes yes, we have all heard the free-agency explanation and that partially covers it but does not seem to fully satisfy everyone.  Here are a few more specific questions on it:

a) why are some seemingly innocent people subjected to more evil than others?  (the starving refugee child vs. the pampered LDS kid - where is the justice?)

b) why have the majority of the world's population (currently and through history) been left in the dark?  

c) Let's take the worst case scenarios such as Mormoni 9:9-10, or Alma 14:10 (copied below for your convenience)  - was it really necessary to allow these types of things to happen?  Couldn't a more rigorous education have been used to prevent such travesties?  

 

There are sins of commission and the sins of omission.  The most common grievance I hear towards God are in regards to His seeming sins of omission.  Just seems like He could be more present, could do a better job educating everyone, could do a better job protecting innocents etc.  

Some people grow up with happy shiny lives, without too horrible of trials, live in privilege etc.  If that is all some people need, then why could that sort of life not work for everyone?  Or do people think those poor abused refugee children were lower on the totem pole in the pre-mortal life, and in need of a harsher fire to refine their rebellious spirits?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Moroni 9:9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after deprivingthem 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; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

Alma 14:10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames. 11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

a) I haven't read other's responses yet. So this may be repetitive. My early life wasn't necessarily super pampered, though i also was by no means the worst life ever. So I think I take these questions with a personal bend at times. As just a quick refresher. I grew up in a relatively (US) poor family to a single mother for the first half, moved a bunch, and had a dysfunctional blended family for the 2nd half where I took up a lot of the family slack when caring for my siblings with little acknowledgement of doing. I've mentioned that my parents were also....messy. My mom grew up in a home with a big dark secret in it (child molesting father) and poor, my step father was also poor, mexican, in the 60's-70's in the south to migrant worker parents, my bio-dad in a civil war as that poor in-country refugee child, with food deprivation at times, and probably with PTSD for at least parts of his life. I've been lucky in the sense that I haven't had it bad. Not in comparison. Though I didn't always see that in the midst of the problems at that time. 

But I say that because question 1 is something i asked myself a lot at times. Or better yet, just felt that question. I felt scarred and different, particularly when we moved to an upper-middle class neighborhood and till about midway in my mission. It didn't make a lot of sense. It was painful. I still remember looking at these happy simple moments in other families that just weren't mine as a kid. Realizing that people had never heard their parents scream and cuss at each other or the kids. Or watching a daughter place her head on her mother's shoulder. Simple things. Over time, I changed. Though this hurt, it did give me things that were helpful. So much of this became the manure that ended up fertilizing my faith and my interactions with people. I know that though it took a lot of healing, several of the things and experiences I've had were based in part from the pain and sorrow and isolation I was acquainted with. I don't regret my past, even as I would hope to never see it replicated. It's not just....but in some ways my experience has made me lose a deep need for immediate justice. I prefer mercy and learning. And when that's not possible, finding safety and an end to more harm to those around evil. It also has given me an unshakable optimism for brighter days and has helped me help others whose paths feel bleak. To not run from pain and sorrow. I sometimes think that we look at those who've had v. those who've had not as in a win-lose scenario. But sometimes I see definite short-comings and their own likely stumbling blocks to those who've lived that more pampered life. They sometimes seem to wilt and more effected by smaller problems. Some may become "spoiled" and "entitled" in a sense that can sometimes be breathtaking. Etc.  

Obviously there are those who end up irreparably damaged in this life by evil inflicted on them. I've met some of them. I'll probably meet more. I think it's what happens particularly in a fallen world where problems, families, and social structures begin to really degrade...but are often ignored or even normalized/enabled. I don't know if this can be answered without a very long term eternal perspective. For me it is enough to believe and experience a God who in time "wipes away all tears" and gives "ashes for beauty." Why there is disparity in experience is difficult and personal. But the gist for me, was that I could experience God in deep eternal ways and use my own healing on their way to their own. To be His hands and reach those that others may not be able to. And what I experienced did not have to leave me irreparably damaged. 

b.) I don't feel that most were left in the dark. The light of Christ is available to all. I see goodness in most. And when that was lost I can see the slow path down, both by other's choices and their own reactions in them.  

c.) No, not without removing agency. I really believe that. In Moroni they had had access to education. But they actively rejected it and rejected receiving correction and humbling. You can't force a person to truth and goodness for the rest of their lives. Look at the beginning of the BoM...where Laman and Lemuel did have very personal access to angels and heard the corrections of God....and as soon as it got a little rocky, would end up overreacting and trying to kill family members. That happens nowadays as well. In many instances others choose a world of selfishness, blindness, greed, corruption, anger, fear, lust etc. And in that cause others unnecessary pain. I've had opportunities to watch people actively choose evil for their lives up close here and there. Sometimes very very knowingly. Its feasibly one of the odder things to see. But it has shown me that education isn't enough. Experience choosing good and desiring the better good is absolutely imperative. I still haven't found a way to force someone to do that. 

I do not in any way see abused refugee children as lower on the totem pole. As mentioned in scripture, it's the meek that inherit the earth. The poor in spirit that are made rich in His kingdom, etc. I also think of the parable in Jacob 5 and the varying places and opportunities afforded varying parts of his vineyard. At one point they talk about a branch that was planted in a poor spot of land: 

21 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: How comest thou hither to plant this tree, or this branch of the tree? For behold, it was the poorest spot in all the land of thy vineyard.22 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto him: Counsel me not; I knew that it was a poor spot of ground; wherefore, I said unto thee, I have nourished it this long time, and thou beholdest that it hath brought forth much fruit.

I think that at times, what people see as disparities and unfairness...even in places where it seems poor....may also find a potential brightness and a people more righteous and Godly in the end. 

I could go on, but I've probably spoken way too much as is  

 

With luv,

BD

[rpn]

Quote

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?

You can't seriously believe that God is going judge people who "are unable to handle their experiences" as outside the Savior's atonement.    We are perfect in Christ so long as we are doing our personal best and quickly repenting, no matter how far from objective perfection we are.   I'm one who thinks that most good people will be in the celestial kingdom because the atonement really does close the entire gap, and God judges not just our actions but our hearts and capabilities.

[changed]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

b.) I don't feel that most were left in the dark. The light of Christ is available to all.

Thanks so much for sharing your story and for your post BD.  

Sometimes Mormons harp so much about missionary work and how essential the church is, perhaps we lose sight that God's plan involved a "small flock" - which apparently leads me to the conclusion that the majority of the population are perhaps better off without a middle-man getting in the way.  You are right, the light of Christ truly is a gift to all.  I'm a convert - won't go into my story here, but I found it interesting that my PB references events both before and after my baptism.  It says I was tested in my young lifetime (with more tests to come...) - interesting that I would be "tested" before I knew anything about anything - I mean that seems a bit unfair, right?  Take the exam when you are a little kid before you have had any classes on anything?  What is the point of that?  Anyways, thanks again for sharing.

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, changed said:

Thanks so much for sharing your story and for your post BD.  

Sometimes Mormons harp so much about missionary work and how essential the church is, perhaps we lose sight that God's plan involved a "small flock" - which apparently leads me to the conclusion that the majority of the population are perhaps better off without a middle-man getting in the way.  You are right, the light of Christ truly is a gift to all.  I'm a convert - won't go into my story here, but I found it interesting that my PB references events both before and after my baptism.  It says I was tested in my young lifetime (with more tests to come...) - interesting that I would be "tested" before I knew anything about anything - I mean that seems a bit unfair, right?  Take the exam when you are a little kid before you have had any classes on anything?  What is the point of that?  Anyways, thanks again for sharing.

Since the light of Christ leads to Christ and a testimony of His works in the earth (His atonement and resurrection and all that flows from them, including the restoration), and there is opposition in all things, then we all get tested at every stage before progressing to the next. The "exams" we face are commensurate with our abilities and the Lord's grace and designed for us to succeed in the long term; hence all tests are fair though that may be difficult to recognize or accept. And if we fail, the Lord had atoned and will help us get back on track. Sometimes we ask, "What was/is the point of this test?" and then we eventuially find out.