The existence of evil

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

God does "stop the evil."  He allows it to happen, but then he provides a complete remedy for any harm caused thereby.  Complete.  That is what the Atonement does.  It overcomes the pain and consequences of evil, and prevents them from continuing.  Forever.

I think this confuses the nature of the problem of evil. If God could have reduced the period of suffering and doesn't, then he's not as good as he could be. So simply saying that eventually he will really doesn't resolve the problem. The question is whether he could do more to make the entire situation better.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is.  God "judging" something as good or evil seems to be equivalent to God "defining" something as good or evil.

It depends upon how you are using define. Did Newton define the law of gravity or discover and describe it?  This is significant in the problem of evil as it goes back to Plato and what's called the Euthypro dilemma. Is the good loved by the gods because it is good or is it good because it is loved by the gods? In other words does God make it good by saying it's good or is it good independent of God. For those who espouse the ontology of creation ex nihilo everything is created by God so it's a bigger deal. The typical Mormon view is that things are good independent of God who had to learn what was good the same way we do. This all ends up having implications in discussions of the problem of evil. (Mormon finitism which limits God ends up being valuable in some ways to deal with certain aspects of evil - although it doesn't ultimately resolve evil)

20 hours ago, Gray said:

The problem of evil is not, "evil is a problem." The problem of evil is: "God is all knowing, all good and all powerful. Why doesn't he stop the evil?" Without a God that looks like that, the problem of evil doesn't exist. Essentially the problem of evil is an inconsistency between the state of the world and a theology that implies the world should actually be different. 

Stopping evil is just the logical problem of evil. That's fairly easy to solve both for Mormons (God's is finite and thus can't do everything logically conceived of) and for traditional Christians (God wants true free will thus evil must logically exist as a possibility). The bigger problem for all theists is the practical or empirical problem of evil. That is for any level of suffering if we could conceive of God doing slightly more to reduce the level of suffering it seems reasonable to think he should. That he doesn't is an indication God doesn't exist with the qualities people ascribe to him. There are various attempts to solve that problem of "reduce it slightly" but nothing fully satisfactory. I think the Mormon approach has the best answer, but it's definitely an incomplete answer.

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

The universe in the plain sense of that word, meets many attributes for God for me:

• The first cause
• Creator, source of life/love/being
• Source of all spiritual principles

Basically I'm pointing to that which is greatest (among the things known to exist) and defining it as God. The idea that we are all a part of God rather than separate from God I think has great spiritual value as well.

Let's turn it around, why are you calling the LDS God God? He doesn't meet the usual definitions for God either. He's an exalted human being from another world. He's limited and finite, he's not the first cause. He didn't even create us - we always existed. Most traditional Christians would say he doesn't meet the definition for God.

Ultimately, what we choose to define as God is subjective. My definition works for me. This is the space in which I can practice spirituality.

Well of course people can call things whatever they want. My point was just that the term pantheism has a pretty long history. You'd asked why the problem of evil was a problem for pantheism and I explained it in terms of that historical sense of pantheism in the western tradition.

As you note there's certainly no need to adopt the greek conceptions of God. Indeed as you note relative to Mormonism, I think they're ultimately wrong. The main driving force behind pantheism though tends to be a sense of meaning. So for both the neoplatonists and stoics the question is how God gives meaning to our life, grounds ethics (the good), and how its the source of spiritual meaning. In other words how does one avoid nihilism given the ontological commitments you make. Recognizing that here nihilism is the problem of why logically there is meaning to the universe out of the universe. Effectively by reducing the godlike aspects of the universe the way you do you've thrown it into what's called an existential conception of meaning (if meaning is possible). However I'm not sure the existential solution fits with your claim about spiritual meaning. Again not attempting to put words into your mouth - here just speaking of the tradition from Nietzsche up through Sartre and company. There are those who adopt an atheist position towards the universe (in terms of meaning-fixing, having intentionality or ordering) yet who attempt to make it meaningful. How successful they are without taking the next step towards a more religious conception of God is debatable. (This is the whole theological turn in French philosophy in the 90's and early aughts -- you have atheists like Derrida along with quasi-theists like Marion debating these issues)

As for why I call the LDS view of God, God, it's because of the relationship. That is I think the meaning of God arises out of the Hebrew, not Greek tradition. In the original pre-exile tradition God is finite (he exists in a pre-existing universe rather than being its ontological ground), and is defined by his covenant relationship with us. However from a Greek philosophical perspective Mormons are definitely atheists. God simply doesn't ground things. However it is from God we learn about and develop spirituality and love even if he doesn't ground them ontologically. I'd say the main difference between Mormon conceptions and Greek or more general western conceptions of God is that the ontological is ultimately irrelevant for us. We just don't care about ontological grounds. It's all about the anthropology of God. In contrast as philosophers allegorized away the Greek myths the ultimate concern - primarily due to Plato and the pythagoreans - was ontological.

Edited November 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/30/2017 at 4:10 PM, changed said:

If the savior's capacity was limitless, there would be no outer darkness, there would be only one degree of glory, there would be no 1/3 who had fallen from heaven.

My trial was given to show me that I am not good enough for the celestial kingdom, so I know without a doubt I am not strong enough, so that I no longer desire to live with god, because god does not want me around and now the feeling is mutual.  if heaven involves sitting around watching people kill and torture one another then count me out.  

God and the Savior won't stop people from making bad choices. Outer Darkness I don't know much about other than very few people go there, like Cain who heard God and decided to use his agency in the opposite direction of truth he witnessed.    The Three Kingdoms, I think, are there because people respond differently to truth and trials.  Some people accept the gospel grudgingly, acceptingly, excitedly, et.c and that's not God's decision; it's the decision of those who hear the message.

The funny thing about God is that He couldn't keep you out of heaven if He wanted to;  that is to say, if you keep the commandments, God can't say: I don't like that one. He can't come in here.  If He did so, he'd be a partial God and cease to be God.  Instead, He complies with eternal truth and law and asks us to do the same. 

I might not have expressed clearly in my last reply to your question that, again just IMHO, God doesn't give us trials that we can't overcome, even if it takes us a long time to do so. He won't be angry because we haven't overcome the trial in 1 year or 20 years; He just asks that we work on it, at our own pace, with faith. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Morality exists the same way that laws exist - we reason together and determine laws/morals that best foster a peaceful/happy society.

So morality is determined by majority rule?

Jim Crow laws were apparently viewed as a way to "best foster a peaceful/happy society."  Does that make them "moral?"

What about slavery (still legal in some countries)?  How is it "moral" to enslave other human beings, provided that you live in a jurisdiction where that is allowed by law?

What about marital rape (also still legal in some countries)?  How is this conduct "moral," provided that you live in a jurisdiction that allows it?

How is it that conduct X is "moral" in one geographical location and "immoral" in another?

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Morality works much the same way, although usually without state enforcement. It's subjective in the sense that human well being is a value that is subjective to human beings. On the other hand, once you start with the assumption that morality = that which promotes human well-being, we can start to come to some reasonable arguments and concrete conclusions. Meth leads to human misery and destruction, therefore it's immoral. That kind of thing.

I still don't follow.  Morality is . . . whatever the majority says it is?

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Many Christians believe that God defines good and evil, but certainly not all. The idea that God gets to determine good and evil brings its own set of problems. For one, good becomes a tautology. Goodness is good because God is good and God says so.

I think "God says so" + God is our Father and loves us, and He is also omnipotent and omniscient and omnipotent is a much better formula for determining morality than leaving such weighty matters to the whims of popular opinion.

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

So really it becomes, "God is God." If God says sacrificing babies to Moloch is good, is that act transformed into a righteous act?

The notion of God "falling" or "ceasing to be God" is, to me, largely an imponderable, particularly if it is predicated on human beings presuming to pass moral judgments on Him.  He is omnipotent and omniscient.  And He loves us.  And He is the "God of Truth."  The scope of his knowledge and understanding, and His goodness, far surpasses ours.  So as between my perception of "good" and "evil" and His, I'll go with the latter.  Every time.

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added):

Quote

 

 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
...
 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

And Alma 42 (emphasis added):

 13 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.
...
 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

 

See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including:

• The Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.)
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 .
• No variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 .
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 .
• God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 .

So, to answer your question ("If God says sacrificing babies to Moloch is good..."), we have to look at the lexical limitations we face, such the value of such purely hypothetical "ifs."  At the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . God will never command us to something that is evil.

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Even if God has some kind of objective morality, we don't have direct access to it, because revelation is subjective by nature.

You are proffering a formula (morality is whatever those in power say it is) that is infinitely more "subjective" than the formula found in the Plan of Salvation.

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

But in Mormon theology, God doesn't actually define good and evil - these are simply laws that God must obey, or cease to be God.

I'm not sure that's right.  I think God can "actually define good and evil" because He has a perfect command of it.  "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."  (Deut. 32:4)

So it doesn't really matter whether God "defines" good and evil.  He understands both utterly and completely, such that he never confuses or conflates the two.  God is a far more trustworthy arbiter of good and evil than the majority opinion of fallen and finite and sinful humans.  We do our best with what we've got, but as resolving conflicts between our collective determinations about morality and God's, I'll go with the latter.  Every time.

In any event, I think we do have "direct access" to God.  That is the objective of having prophets and apostles and personal revelation and the Holy Spirit.  These are, for me, far more reliable and trustworthy than acquiescing to the arbitrary and capricious whims of majority opinion.

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Quote

So how are these concepts defined in pantheism?  Who sets the rules?

Okay, so if God does not set the rules of morality, and and if individuals do not set the rules ("{t}hat doesn't mean anything goes"), then is it the collective?  The community?

Yes, the community. And of course it's reinforced through nature and nurture.

So morality is whatever "the community" says it is.  Okay.  How does that work when different communities have mutually contradictory viewpoints on morality?  Which community is correct?  Or are both correct?

Let's go with slavery as an example.  If Community X passes a law that allows slavery on the grounds that it is moral and right, and Community Y simultaneously passes a law that prohibits slavery on the grounds that it is immoral and wrong, which community has correctly assessed the morality of slavery?

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

But let's replace the word "morality" with "human well-being".

I'd rather not.  We are discussing "morality."  Let's stick with that term.

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Human well-being isn't just a matter of anything goes. There are definitely some things that generally promote human well being, and some things that promote the opposite. That goes beyond any one person's subjective opinion. Maybe that goes back to the idea of morality in Mormonism being outside of God's direct control.

Morality is, ultimately, pure truth.  So it is, I think, not a matter of "control," but rather a matter of access and comprehension.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Brother Bear]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not challenging your ability to discern "good" and "evil."  I am asking how you do it.

Ah.  Then.  I'll avoid further discussion with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

I feel a need to clarify my usage of the word "absurd," given my poor choice of words in previous discussion with you (for which insincerely apologize and have vowed to myself to not do again). I don't mean you are absurd or that those questions are "stupid" or "idiotic." In fact, I think they are very important questions to ask in a discussion like this. I mean "absurd" in the "does not compute in my mind" sense. To me this discussion is identical to Bill Reel's thread on the Holy Ghost. Bill's questions are absurd to people who have had very positive experiences in following the Prophet, and some attempt at a gotcha effort in pointing out potential contradiction in policy is irrelevant to the fact that they have found that following the prophet is like tasting good fruit. It's good. It makes sense. Even if a mistake was made, it doesn't make sense that the mistake negates what they know from direct experience.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this confuses the nature of the problem of evil. If God could have reduced the period of suffering and doesn't, then he's not as good as he could be.

This is not self-evident.  It presumes that we are better arbiters than God as to matters of suffering.  We aren't.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So simply saying that eventually he will really doesn't resolve the problem. The question is whether he could do more to make the entire situation better.

And I think the answer to that question is addressed here:

Quote

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 255-256)

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is."  We are simply not situated to supplant God's wisdom with ours (which is part and parcel of questions like "Whether {God} could do more to make the entire situation better").

I also have in mind these passages:

• "For my thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are your cays my days, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8)
• "The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just."  (Mosiah 16:1)
• "Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them..."  (Mosiah 27:31)
• "O the pain, and the anguish of my soul for the loss of the slain of my people! For I, Nephi, have seen it, and it well nigh consumeth me before the presence of the Lord; but I must cry unto my God: Thy ways are just."  (2 Nephi 26:7)
• "{W}e must come forth and stand before him in his glory, and in his power, and in his might, majesty, and dominion, and acknowledge to our everlasting shame that all his judgments are just; that he is just in all his works, and that he is merciful unto the children of men..." (Alma 12:15)
• "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10)

So yes, there are times when God "could do more to make the entire situation better," but I don't think that is a "problem" for a benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing Father.  He simply knows more than we do.  Our finite knowledge and perspective prevent us from seeing the bigger picture.  Consider Alma 14:

Quote

8 And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.

9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

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.

Neither Alma nor Amulek could see what the Lord could see.  They allowed a horrible thing to happen, because God told them to.  And if God told them to, and if God is perfect and right every time, and if his judgments are just, then allowing that horrible thing to happen was, in the ultimate sense, "right."

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Stopping evil is just the logical problem of evil. That's fairly easy to solve both for Mormons (God's is finite and thus can't do everything logically conceived of) and for traditional Christians (God wants true free will thus evil must logically exist as a possibility).

Okay.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The bigger problem for all theists is the practical or empirical problem of evil. That is for any level of suffering if we could conceive of God doing slightly more to reduce the level of suffering it seems reasonable to think he should.

I don't see that as a problem.  "He should..." is a value judgment.  By a flawed and finite human being against a benevolent and all-knowing and all-powerful Father in Heaven.

What God, in my eyes, "should do" is going to be a jumble of some correct principles, but also finite knowledge, wishful thinking, emotions, bias, false notions, self-justification, and so on.

I am presently embroiled in litigation with a fellow who thinks that he "should" get a huge house located in a posh suburb of Salt Lake City.  He did not buy the house.  He acquired title to it from the previous owners, who took about a large loan ($600,000) to buy it, but then promptly defaulted and spent the next several years filing bankruptcy petitions and doing all sorts of other things to stall and delay and frustrate my client's foreclosure efforts.  Those delaying tactics ultimately dried up, so they gave the property to "Mr. Mac," who now claims that the statute of limitations has lapsed, such that the bank is prohibited from enforcing their foreclosure rights on the property, and that he "should" therefore get this house for free (I suspect he is colluding with the previous owners, who I think I will take the property back if Mr. Mac wins the lawsuit).

I represent the bank.  The bank thinks that it "should" be able to foreclose.  Its argument is that the loan they gave to the previous owners was an "installment contract" (a contract complied with in "installments," or monthly payments), and that each missed monthly payment is a new breach of the contract, and that with each new breach the statute of limitations starts to run anew.

Here's the thing: Both parties have very different notions of what "should" happen.  Both sides want to maximize any benefit they can accrue to themselves.  Both have perspectives which are blinkered and fettered by finite knowledge, wishful thinking, emotions, bias, false notions, self-justification, and so on.  So we take this matter to an impartial "higher" authority: a judge in the state court system.  We present our respective arguments and he decides what "should" happen.  Now, he too may be wrong, but that risk is lessened by his impartiality.  And if a party thinks the district court judge is wrong, that party can file an appeal to the state Supreme Court.  That court may then render a decision as to what "should" happen.  And that court is also hopefully not influenced by "finite knowledge, wishful thinking, emotions, bias, false notions, self-justification, and so on."  And since the Supreme Court is made up of five justices, with many decades of legal experience between them, and since they have no pre-existing partiality as to one party or the other, and since they have no stake in who actually gets the house, I would be much more comfortable with their assessment of what "should" happen as compared to Mr. Mac's assessment (or, for that matter, my assessment).

We are all like "Mr. Mac," who is situated very differently than, and subordinately to, the Supreme Court.  The big difference, though, is that there are infinitely larger differences and subordination we have as compared to God and His judgments.  If and when this case I am involved in ends up before the Utah Supreme Court, and if my client wins, then I think Mr. Mac will probably be upset.  He may even say that the Supreme Court "got it wrong," and proceed to declare how it "should" have decided instead.  But Mr. Mac has never been to law school.  He has no training in the law.  He is not represented by an attorney.  His claims in the litigation are nakedly self-serving (who wouldn't want a mcmansion without having to pay for it?).  He has also already demonstrated quite a temper with me (among other things, he accused me of "bad faith" because I cited a federal court decision which he does not like).  So as between his anticipated I-lost-because-the-Supreme-Court-was-to-stupid-or-dishonest-to-get-the-law-right judgment about how the legal dispute "should" have been resolved and the clinical and learned and dispassionate decision from the Supreme Court, I'd be inclined to go with the Supreme Court.  (I also hope that I'd be a good enough attorney to swallow my pride and go along with the Supreme Court if they ruled against my client.)

I think God is infinitely more wise and just and good than the Utah Supreme Court.  I think the chasm between us "Mr. Macs" and Him is enormously vast.  So if the "Problem of Evil" is reducible to what I, as a "Mr. Mac," think that God "should" do in a given circumstance, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.  I'll trust that His ways are just.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That he doesn't is an indication God doesn't exist with the qualities people ascribe to him. There are various attempts to solve that problem of "reduce it slightly" but nothing fully satisfactory. I think the Mormon approach has the best answer, but it's definitely an incomplete answer.

Agreed.  We don't have complete answers to much of anything.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor.5:7)

I appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

I feel a need to clarify my usage of the word "absurd," given my poor choice of words in previous discussion with you (for which insincerely apologize and have vowed to myself to not do again). I don't mean you are absurd or that those questions are "stupid" or "idiotic." In fact, I think they are very important questions to ask in a discussion like this. I mean "absurd" in the "does not compute in my mind" sense. To me this discussion is identical to Bill Reel's thread on the Holy Ghost. Bill's questions are absurd to people who have had very positive experiences in following the Prophet, and some attempt at a gotcha effort in pointing out potential contradiction in policy is irrelevant to the fact that they have found that following the prophet is like tasting good fruit. It's good. It makes sense. Even if a mistake was made, it doesn't make sense that the mistake negates what they know from direct experience.

I was not offended by your choice of words (you used "absurd" to describe hypothetical questions, not me).

Rather, I am declining to enter into a discussion with you because it does not seem like you are addressing the points I am raising.  We seem to be talking past each other.

So no offense was taken, and I hope none was given.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

Well thank you! (This is smileymcgee; I had some login issues with my other account, not trying to be sneaky, it's all in good faith)

HA!  Not too many hereabouts who think that way!! 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/31/2017 at 7:15 AM, smac97 said:

Okay, hoping to re-set our interactions.  We good?

Moving on . . . Could you explain your philosophy of how "good and evil exist?"

It seems that Judeo-Christian thinking does not do this.  Rather, it posits that "good" and "evil" are defined by God, not by individual "subjective determinations."  

So how are these concepts defined in pantheism?  Who sets the rules?

Okay, so if God does not set the rules of morality, and and if individuals do not set the rules ("{t}hat doesn't mean anything goes"), then is it the collective?  The community?

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually if you want an early Christian document which sees good and evil differently, I would suggest the Didache which defines good and evil in rather pragmatic terms defining the "Way of Life" as "good" and the "Way of Death" as "evil"

http://www.thedidache.com/

Arguably that then is also about the community- behaviors which are beneficial to the community and promote life are "good" and as Gray brought up here, things like meth addiction which leads to death are clearly evil for the individual and the community.

This also fits with Isaiah Berlin's concept of Positive Liberty vs Negative Liberty.  http://faculty.www.umb.edu/steven.levine/courses/Fall 2015/What is Freedom Writings/Berlin.pdf

In general as LDS we think about this all the time in the way for example, we think about the Word of Wisdom not as a restriction but as giving us freedom from addictions.   In general that is a very LDS way of thinking, imo, even in an Alma 32 sense.   You live the commandment, like say honoring your parents, and that leads to family unity, strong families and a happier life.  The seed you plant and live, grows into sweet fruit.

The idea is that following the commandments leads to freedom and a good community life in a very practical way.

Here are some verses from section 3 which include illustrations of the practicality of "goodness"

Quote

1. My child, flee from every evil man and from all like him. 
2. Be not proud, for pride leads to murder, nor jealous, nor contentious, nor passionate, for from all these murders are engendered. 
3. My child, be not lustful, for lust leads to fornication, nor a speaker of base words, nor a lifter up of the eyes, for from all these is adultery engendered. 
4. My child, regard not omens, for this leads to idolatry; neither be an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a magician, neither wish to see these things, for from them all is idolatry engendered. 
5. My child, be not a liar, for lying leads to theft, nor a lover of money, nor vain-glorious, for from all these things are thefts engendered. 
6. My child, be not a grumbler, for this leads to blasphemy, nor stubborn, nor a thinker of evil, for from all these are blasphemies engendered. 
7. But be thou "meek, for the meek shall inherit the earth;" 
8. Be thou long-suffering, and merciful and guileless, and quiet, and good, and ever fearing the words which thou hast heard.

This first century document has always interested me because it clearly displays the spirit of Pragmatism- that which is good has practical import within one's life as well as for the community.

If there were no traffic laws, one could not drive down the street safely.  Same thing.  And I know you totally get that from your profession!   Laws allow us to have freedom, which seems paradoxical to some.  So good and evil can be seen as very practical ways of life, and not only "God given"

Of course we know that God gave us commandments because practically, they work.

Secularists would say that that laws and morality have "survival value" and evolved culturally to keep peace- during peace one has more happy babies which lead to population growth etc.

But all of this is based on the same principle- goodness makes life pleasant and yes, "good"!  

So for me the question of the existence of good kind of disappears.   It exists as a practical way of life, not as some abstract cloud or Platonic Form of Goodness etc.   It just works for people and works for society.   Yet of course God made it that way!  Or alternatively, living the "way of life" makes us godlike because that is the way HE lives, defining "eternal life"

Edited November 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

But in Mormon theology, God doesn't actually define good and evil - these are simply laws that God must obey, or cease to be God. Where do these laws come from then? It's not defined. Maybe they're some kind of Platonic ideal. Morality is outside of God, though, and most likely predates God's Godhood.

Of course they are defined and the answer is right in front of your nose.  Ever heard of the "Plan of Happiness"?  That we are here to fill the measure of our creation and have joy therein?

That we plant the seed and see that the fruit is sweet?

Living a good life is just plain old Mormon Pragmatism, not some Platonic Ideal.  We define Ideals by what works to produce happiness.  You live the plan of happiness and guess what?   YOU BECOME HAPPY!

Works for me.     No complicated Platonic Forms, no principles of Justice balancing Mercy floating around in the Universe somewhere like a big scale, just what works in practical living. 

Would God live or teach a principle which leads to unhappiness?  THAT is the crux.  He would cease to be happy and therefore cease to be God.  Nothing complicated- just practical living. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this confuses the nature of the problem of evil. If God could have reduced the period of suffering and doesn't, then he's not as good as he could be. So simply saying that eventually he will really doesn't resolve the problem. The question is whether he could do more to make the entire situation better.

It depends upon how you are using define. Did Newton define the law of gravity or discover and describe it?  This is significant in the problem of evil as it goes back to Plato and what's called the Euthypro dilemma. Is the good loved by the gods because it is good or is it good because it is loved by the gods? In other words does God make it good by saying it's good or is it good independent of God. For those who espouse the ontology of creation ex nihilo everything is created by God so it's a bigger deal. The typical Mormon view is that things are good independent of God who had to learn what was good the same way we do. This all ends up having implications in discussions of the problem of evil. (Mormon finitism which limits God ends up being valuable in some ways to deal with certain aspects of evil - although it doesn't ultimately resolve evil)

Stopping evil is just the logical problem of evil. That's fairly easy to solve both for Mormons (God's is finite and thus can't do everything logically conceived of) and for traditional Christians (God wants true free will thus evil must logically exist as a possibility). The bigger problem for all theists is the practical or empirical problem of evil. That is for any level of suffering if we could conceive of God doing slightly more to reduce the level of suffering it seems reasonable to think he should. That he doesn't is an indication God doesn't exist with the qualities people ascribe to him. There are various attempts to solve that problem of "reduce it slightly" but nothing fully satisfactory. I think the Mormon approach has the best answer, but it's definitely an incomplete answer.

No big problem, it's totally about practical living.

It's not God's fault we do not follow what works to make ourselves happy- why should we blame HIM for the way WE live??

He is busy living his life- eternal life- as are we.  Really I don't see the problem if you think of God as a glorified HUMAN living his life and we have ours.   He does not interfere in our lives unless asked, as any good parent would with adult children.  My kids make mistakes and there is nothing much I can do about that.   

To me it is a mass of linguistic confusion with all the ontology etc.  I don't see a "logical problem of evil".  People do stuff which is not in their ultimate best interest.  Not too complicated.  There is no comparison between Newtonian laws and what makes us happy- why the confusion there?   Do physicists study ethics??

The gods love good for the same reason we should- it leads to happiness for both gods and men- since we ARE gods.  Simple stuff.  Rules work to make all of us happy.

Nothing to do with being finite or infinite- it's living by the rules humans and God have found to be indispensable for having a happy life.   "Be nice and get along."

This notion that God is Human has far-reaching implications I think many LDS don't even think about.  

But I suppose I am simple minded.

Edited November 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Clark said

Quote

That is for any level of suffering if we could conceive of God doing slightly more to reduce the level of suffering it seems reasonable to think he should. That he doesn't is an indication God doesn't exist with the qualities people ascribe to him. 

I totally agree.  The fact is that God CAN'T reduce the level of suffering we cause.  He can't reduce the level of suffering natural disasters cause.  It's not because he doesn't have the power- it's just not part of the overall plan he has accepted for himself.  It would be self-contradictory for him to ease the tests he already has put forth as part of the plan.

And yes, if people ascribe the quality of being self-contradictory to God, it is correct that he does not exist with that quality. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/31/2017 at 11:17 AM, Gray said:

The problem of evil is: "God is all knowing, all good and all powerful. Why doesn't he stop the evil?"

By imposing his will he becomes part of the evil. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's not God's fault we do not follow what works to make ourselves happy- why should we blame HIM for the way WE live??

He is busy living his life- eternal life- as are we.  Really I don't see the problem if you think of God as a glorified HUMAN living his life and we have ours.   He does not interfere in our lives unless asked, as any good parent would with adult children.  My kids make mistakes and there is nothing much I can do about that.   

If you saw a child with a broken leg on the side of the road from a bike crash, would you just walk by? If not (and I assume you wouldn't) then you can't simply separate God living his life from us living our life. The fact is that to the degree I'm aware of what others do there are ethical duties. That's all the practical problem of evil deals with.

The logical problem of evil is just extending this to an omnipotent, omniscient being. I agree that ultimately the logical problem of evil isn't that big of a deal nor relevant to the types of questions of suffering we usually worry about. It does, however, have implications for what you think evil is. Whether you think those ultimately relevant again depends upon how you conceive of God. Since I assume you, like me, conceive of God more anthropologically it's ultimately not terribly interesting. But it's not interesting precisely because you've already embraced a conception of God as finite and that resolves the logical problem.

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

By imposing his will he becomes part of the evil. 

I confess I don't see that. Again if I see a child on the side of the road with a broken leg how does imposing my will (stopping, helping them, taking them to the hospital) make me part of the evil?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is not self-evident.  It presumes that we are better arbiters than God as to matters of suffering.  We aren't.  

That's a traditional move. (Anselm and the negative theology movement more or less makes a similar move) However it's completely unsatisfactory. Even if God is a better arbiter it doesn't mean our judgment about what is or isn't suffering are all wrong. That is ultimately it's just a claim that we know nothing about such matters which seems very, very hard to believe.

Effectively what I suspect the move you're attempting to make is that you believe in God and that entails trusting God knows what he is doing. In other words you don't have an answer to the problem of evil but assume God does. And that's a perfectly fine answers. Ultimately it's my own answer. I just don't pretend it's really an answer to the problem of evil. Nor would it be persuasive in the least to someone doubting God because of the problem of evil.

I think what people need is some reason to believe that there is a solution such that faith in God isn't undermined. While I think the typical Mormon answer to the problem of evil isn't a full answer I think it at least outlines enough of an answer so as to make it plausible there is an answer. Merely saying God is a better judge therefore we just have to trust him really doesn't do that. Put an other way, the problem of evil is ultimately a request for a certain type of apologetic answer for people having doubts due to the nature of suffering. Negative theology or positions close to it are completely unsatisfactory as an apologetic response. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Quote

Quote

I think this confuses the nature of the problem of evil. If God could have reduced the period of suffering and doesn't, then he's not as good as he could be.

This is not self-evident.  It presumes that we are better arbiters than God as to matters of suffering.  We aren't.  

That's a traditional move. (Anselm and the negative theology movement more or less makes a similar move) However it's completely unsatisfactory.

I'm okay with that.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Even if God is a better arbiter it doesn't mean our judgment about what is or isn't suffering are all wrong.

Let me clarify: As to the issue of what God "should" do vis-à-vis suffering (shorten it, prolong it, ignore it, whatever), I submit that humans are not well-situated to respond to such an inquiry, particularly when doing so contemplates man finding fault with God.  

"Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10)

"Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?"  (Isaiah 45:9)

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."  (Job 38:4)

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."  (Proverbs 3:5)

I can ask questions all the day long about what God has done or might do.  But as soon as I start positioning myself to declare what He should or should not do, I'm going out on a limb.  That, to me, smacks of "counsel{ing} the Lord."  "Striv{ing} with {my} Maker."  And so on.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Effectively what I suspect the move you're attempting to make is that you believe in God and that entails trusting God knows what he is doing.

Yep.  "O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it."  (2 Nephi 9:20)

There are lots of scriptures about God's omniscience.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In other words you don't have an answer to the problem of evil but assume God does.

Not really.  I think the "problem of evil" is accounted for in and answered by the Plan of Salvation.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And that's a perfectly fine answers. Ultimately it's my own answer. I just don't pretend it's really an answer to the problem of evil. Nor would it be persuasive in the least to someone doubting God because of the problem of evil.

I understand that.  We are all speaking of our individual approaches to this issue.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think what people need is some reason to believe that there is a solution such that faith in God isn't undermined.

I can appreciate that.  I think the concept of agency as taught in the Plan of Salvation is a very good place to start.

Kathleen Flake summarized things well here:

Quote

{In LDS thought} evil is uncreated and co-eternal with good and God; so are we. Evil, like God and us, simply is, but evil pollutes, like a fly in the ointment, God’s order for the flourishing of human life in God’s image. Thus, in Mormonism, most of the bad experiences in this life are explained in terms of humans choosing the fly over the ointment. But, notwithstanding this interplay of independent agency and existence, evil’s uncreatedness does not place it beyond God’s power; neither is God blind to or unmoved by evil’s effect…{Evil’s} limits are set, but God’s are not. Why God doesn’t prevent evil immediately is a function of a world comprised of competing agencies, pending final judgment…

For Latter-day Saints, God’s mightiness to save is defined not by his capacity to prevent evil, but to create good when only evil seems possible. He doesn’t turn evil into good, but he overcomes it with the good.

I think most folks are not looking for extensive philosophical treatises on issues like this.  Many would therefore be satisfied with something like this: "Yes, evil exists, and God allows it to.  There is a reason for that.  Let's review chapter 4 of the Gospel Principles manual ("Freedom to Choose") to get things going..."

That could then be followed up with one of my favorite quotes from Hugh Nibley: "God does not fight Satan: a word from him and Satan is silenced and banished. There is no contest there; in fact we are expressly told that all the power which Satan enjoys here on earth is granted him by God. 'We will allow Satan, our common enemy, to try man and to tempt him.' It is man's strength that is being tested—not God's."

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While I think the typical Mormon answer to the problem of evil isn't a full answer I think it at least outlines enough of an answer so as to make it plausible there is an answer. Merely saying God is a better judge therefore we just have to trust him really doesn't do that.

I'm okay with that.  

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Put an other way, the problem of evil is ultimately a request for a certain type of apologetic answer for people having doubts due to the nature of suffering. Negative theology or positions close to it are completely unsatisfactory as an apologetic response. 

That depends on the individual, I suppose.  I can think of several instances where simple and straightforward answers have been sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

God and the Savior won't stop people from making bad choices. Outer Darkness I don't know much about other than very few people go there, like Cain who heard God and decided to use his agency in the opposite direction of truth he witnessed.    The Three Kingdoms, I think, are there because people respond differently to truth and trials.  Some people accept the gospel grudgingly, acceptingly, excitedly, et.c and that's not God's decision; it's the decision of those who hear the message.

The funny thing about God is that He couldn't keep you out of heaven if He wanted to;  that is to say, if you keep the commandments, God can't say: I don't like that one. He can't come in here.  If He did so, he'd be a partial God and cease to be God.  Instead, He complies with eternal truth and law and asks us to do the same. 

I might not have expressed clearly in my last reply to your question that, again just IMHO, God doesn't give us trials that we can't overcome, even if it takes us a long time to do so. He won't be angry because we haven't overcome the trial in 1 year or 20 years; He just asks that we work on it, at our own pace, with faith. 

 

I fear it's a matter of circumstance - of educational background, for who accepts god or not.  Put someone who is currently excited about god into a different trial, and they will crumble and fall.  All those who fall are simply those who were given trials that were too hard to handle.  

No one is perfect, no one keeps all the commandments, god is able to reject anyone he does not like.  

The three kingdoms are evidence of the imperfect nature of heaven.  Hierarchies, and caste systems, which is what the 3 kingdoms are -  imperfect.  

If god actually had love for all, then all would be saved in the same kingdom with the same glory.  

How could anyone be happy in heaven, knowing others are eternally in hell?

[pogi]

4 hours ago, changed said:

If god actually had love for all, then all would be saved in the same kingdom with the same glory.  

Isn't there virtue in opposition?  Isn't it required for the plan of happiness?  The happiness that God has planned for us cannot exist in the absence of suffering.  To eliminate suffering would be to eliminate eternal celestial happiness.

I don't look at suffering as an evil thing or a good thing in and of itself.  I look at it more as a fire that can either refine us or consume us.  Fire always hurts, but it can be both destructive and generative of new life.   Suffering, like fire, can be a catalyst for good or evil.  Suffering in itself is not a virtue, but it can evoke virtues in ourselves and others.  Without suffering, there could be no compassion and compassion is the seed of godliness.  Compassion is at the heart of agape love.  It is the heart of Christ and the atonement.  But suffering not only teaches us the virtues of compassion  and bearing one another's burdens, but it also teaches us and helps us to appreciate and savor more the positive and sweet moments with others.  The people that you will be closest to in this life; the people that you will feel the deepest love and desire for, will be those that you have suffered with.  Those that you have served.  Without that opportunity, we cannot mature in our godliness or acquire Christlike attributes.  Remove opposition and we are damned...permanently.  Suffering can also teach us and strengthen our perseverance, hope, character endurance and perfection (Romans 5 and James 1).  It can also teach us the virtues of humility and the relinquishment of self in God, if we let it.  Buddhism teaches that it is only through the relinquishment of self that we can escape the cycle of suffering.  I think Mormonism teaches something similar:  "...and he also gave them strength, that they should suffer no manner of afflictions, save it were swallowed up in the joy of Christ (Alma 31)."  - Total relinquishment!

That is why I say that suffering is not a problem and is not an evil in and of itself.  Even the cross can be a symbol for good!  That is the problem, in my view, with "the problem of evil".

Edited November 2, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

18 hours ago, changed said:

If god actually had love for all, then all would be saved in the same kingdom with the same glory.  

That reminds me of a very manipulative line that children often use, "if you really loved me..."    To which the parent may respond, "if you only knew!"  The parent knows that the child's best interest is at heart,, but the child simply cannot see beyond his own foolish desires and imaginations, no matter how hard the parent tries to explain.  Should the parent question his love for his child because the child is inexperienced and blind?

Here is another way to look at it:

If you really loved your child, would you keep him in a bubble and protect him from all potential harms?  You see, preservation from all potential harm would be even more crippling and damaging to your child in the end, wouldn't it!  

If I wanted to protect my child from all potential harm, I would have had a vasectomy.  If God wanted to stop all suffering in an instant, he could painlessly end life as we know it...that would solve the problem of mortal suffering!  But you see, life has something good to offer notwithstanding the potential for suffering - and sometimes because of that suffering.  

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If you saw a child with a broken leg on the side of the road from a bike crash, would you just walk by? If not (and I assume you wouldn't) then you can't simply separate God living his life from us living our life. The fact is that to the degree I'm aware of what others do there are ethical duties. That's all the practical problem of evil deals with.

The logical problem of evil is just extending this to an omnipotent, omniscient being. I agree that ultimately the logical problem of evil isn't that big of a deal nor relevant to the types of questions of suffering we usually worry about. It does, however, have implications for what you think evil is. Whether you think those ultimately relevant again depends upon how you conceive of God. Since I assume you, like me, conceive of God more anthropologically it's ultimately not terribly interesting. But it's not interesting precisely because you've already embraced a conception of God as finite and that resolves the logical problem.

I confess I don't see that. Again if I see a child on the side of the road with a broken leg how does imposing my will (stopping, helping them, taking them to the hospital) make me part of the evil?

That's a traditional move. (Anselm and the negative theology movement more or less makes a similar move) However it's completely unsatisfactory. Even if God is a better arbiter it doesn't mean our judgment about what is or isn't suffering are all wrong. That is ultimately it's just a claim that we know nothing about such matters which seems very, very hard to believe.

Effectively what I suspect the move you're attempting to make is that you believe in God and that entails trusting God knows what he is doing. In other words you don't have an answer to the problem of evil but assume God does. And that's a perfectly fine answers. Ultimately it's my own answer. I just don't pretend it's really an answer to the problem of evil. Nor would it be persuasive in the least to someone doubting God because of the problem of evil.

I think what people need is some reason to believe that there is a solution such that faith in God isn't undermined. While I think the typical Mormon answer to the problem of evil isn't a full answer I think it at least outlines enough of an answer so as to make it plausible there is an answer. Merely saying God is a better judge therefore we just have to trust him really doesn't do that. Put an other way, the problem of evil is ultimately a request for a certain type of apologetic answer for people having doubts due to the nature of suffering. Negative theology or positions close to it are completely unsatisfactory as an apologetic response. 

No if I was God I would see the purpose in his suffering. You know about the chick pecking his way out of the shell, right? Help and he dies?

And maybe I want that child on the other side anyway.

Did God stop Jesus' suffering?

Edited November 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

No if I was God I would see the purpose in his suffering. You know about the chick pecking his way out of the shell, right? Help and he dies?

And maybe I want that child on the other side anyway.

But that presupposes there is purpose. i.e. assuming the conclusion.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see that. Again if I see a child on the side of the road with a broken leg how does imposing my will (stopping, helping them, taking them to the hospital) make me part of the evil?

God will not force obedience to his will. We are not his puppets. Were he to do so, he would cease to be God and would be evil. D&C 121....

Quote

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kickagainst the pricks, to persecute the saints.

As Elder Maxwell noted,

Quote

But there’s this ground rule: The Prophet Joseph assured us, “The devil could not compel mankind to do evil; all was voluntary. . . . God would not exert any compulsory means, and the devil could not” (Teachings, 187.) https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_free-choose/

And as we sing in the hymn Know This, That Every Soul is Free, 

Quote

1. 1. Know this, that ev’ry soul is free
   To choose his life and what he’ll be;
   For this eternal truth is giv’n:
   That God will force no man to heav’n.
2. 2. He’ll call, persuade, direct aright,
   And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
   In nameless ways be good and kind,
   But never force the human mind.
3. 3. Freedom and reason make us men;
   Take these away, what are we then?
   Mere animals [or puppets], and just as well
   The beasts may think of heav’n or hell.
4. 4. May we no more our pow’rs abuse,
   But ways of truth and goodness choose
   Our God is pleased when we improve

   His grace and seek his perfect love.

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

God will not force obedience to his will. We are not his puppets. Were he to do so, he would cease to be God and would be evil. D&C 121....

There's a big divide between forcing obedience though and simply making the world somewhat better. Let's give an obvious example of a type of suffering God could alleviate without forcing obedience. Make brains so there was less mental illness. So for example you and I aren't psychopaths, bipolar, or schizophrenic yet are fully free. Thus were God to eliminate those he would affect freedom at all. Indeed given that most of us see mental illness as limiting freedom he'd actually improve freedom in the world. Simultaneously he'd reduce suffering significantly not only for those suffering from those illnesses but for those they affect - especially for psychopathy. Throw in how the brain responds to trauma and suddenly the world is a significantly better place with no reduction in freedom.

So the question then becomes, why doesn't he do that? What's the value in ensuring brain states incentivize the rise of serial killers for instance?

Now of course as believers we have faith there's an answer to this. But it's not at all obvious what an answer could be.

Edited November 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

18 hours ago, changed said:

I fear it's a matter of circumstance - of educational background, for who accepts god or not. 

But there are all sorts of people who join the Church.  And leave it.

I know plenty of educated people who stay, and some who leave.

I know plenty of less-educated who stay, and some who leave.

Moreover, how do you account for data like this:

Quote

In America, Does More Education Equal Less Religion?
Overall, U.S. adults with college degrees are less religious than others, but this pattern does not hold among Christians

The idea that highly educated people are less religious, on average, than those with less education has been a part of the public discourse for decades, but some scholars of religion have called this notion into question.  And a new analysis of Pew Research Center surveys shows that the relationship between religion and education in the United States is not so simple.

...

Among Mormons, those who are more highly educated are not simply as religious as those with less education – Mormons with college experience are more religiously observant, on average, than Mormons with less education. Fully 92% of college-educated Mormons are highly religious, as are 91% of Mormons with some college. Among Mormons whose education topped out with high school, however, just 78% score high on the index of religious observance.

It seems that education is not necessarily determinative.  And to the extent it is a factor, it is a factor in favor of faith.

18 hours ago, changed said:

The three kingdoms are evidence of the imperfect nature of heaven.  Hierarchies, and caste systems, which is what the 3 kingdoms are -  imperfect.  

I think you have an incorrect understand and perception of this topic.

18 hours ago, changed said:

If god actually had love for all, then all would be saved in the same kingdom with the same glory.  

That is a value judgment.  And not self-evident at all.

18 hours ago, changed said:

How could anyone be happy in heaven, knowing others are eternally in hell?

"In hell" being . . . a lower kingdom of glory?

Even the most depraved and wicked of us (save the Sons of Perdition) will end up in a kingdom of glory, the Telestial, which "surpasses all mortal understanding."

Imagine the absolute highest ideal of existence.  The best possible happiness and circumstance.  Let your imagination off the leash and run with it.  Try to conceptualize the happiest state that could ever be.  And having done so, you still would not be even close to the beauty and wonders of the Telestial Kingdom (since, as noted above, it surpasses all "mortal understanding").  We cannot even comprehend how wonderful it is going to be.  And that is the lowest kingdom of glory, reserved for murderers, "unrepentant adulterers, whoremongers, and those who both loved and made lies."

Again, I think you have an incorrect understand and perception of this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

On 10/31/2017 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

He does "stop the evil."

• "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33)
• "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." (1 John 5:4)
• "Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me.  And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost."  (D&C 50:41-42)
• "He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world." (D&C 63:47)
• "When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God."  (D&C 76:107)
• "And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God."  (D&C 88:106)
• "And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."  (D&C 121:8)

 

 

On 10/31/2017 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

God does "stop the evil."  He allows it to happen, but then he provides a complete remedy for any harm caused thereby.  Complete.  That is what the Atonement does.  It overcomes the pain and consequences of evil, and prevents them from continuing.  Forever.

I think the "the problem of evil" stems from a misunderstanding of God.  Joseph Smith put it this way:

The "Problem of Evil" is, in my view, accounted for and addressed in the LDS paradigm.

But that inconsistency does not seem to be endemic to the LDS paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, by stop the evil, I mean prevent it from happen. I don't mean just comforting the victims eventually and punishing the wicked eventually. 

In the LDS paradigm, God doesn't necessarily have total freedom to do anything He likes, but he does have the ability to intercede dramatically in people's lives to stop evil. The question becomes, why doesn't he except for very selective instances in sacred stories? 

[Gray]

On 10/31/2017 at 1:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  But with the proviso of infinite regress of gods.  There is no first god, and there is no origin point of gods.  They have always existed, just as there have always been humans.

This is where my eyes get crossed, as infinity isn't a real number, more of a counter intuitive abstract concept. But in the endless regression of chicken/egg. the egg (universe/existence) always precedes the chicken (God). 

There are some interesting things you can say about this idea and time as it relates to "infinity". Time, for instance, starts at the Big Bang. It makes no sense to say something happened before the big bang - before implies passage of time. So let's say at the Big Bang all the intelligences are hatched. These intelligences "always existed" because they've existed as long as time/being has existed. Some of them go on to become Gods. Is this a good enough analog for "infinity"? Where does the multiverse hypothesis come into it? Their time would not be our time. 

Fun stuff.