The existence of evil

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

The world would be better off without mosquitoes, fleas, pimples, and rap music. Why does he not fix those, too?

Edited November 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

9 hours ago, changed said:

It is not temporary pain, everyone does not progress, and it must not be necessary for progression as many spirits (children who die young, Jesus, etc.) never have to sin to progress.

Yes, pain is temporary.  And I think the point is for everyone to have the opportunity to progress.

As for the need for enduring suffering (that is, facing opposition), I don't think we can second-guess in this way. 

9 hours ago, changed said:

I would be ok with it if:

- Everyone was saved at the end

Everyone is "saved at the end" (everyone will be resurrected, everyone will be given a kingdom of glory) except for those who do not want it (Sons of Perdition).

9 hours ago, changed said:

- no one was tested beyond their ability to endure

According to Mosiah 4:27, Alma 1:26, and D&C 10:4, no one is.  I believe that to be eminently true.

9 hours ago, changed said:

- everyone was given similar tests

The Parable of the Talents accounts for this, I think.

9 hours ago, changed said:

- everyone was given adequate education prior to their tests

The justice of God accounts for this, I think.  See also D&C 123:12.

9 hours ago, changed said:

I am a teacher.  I do not administer unfair tests, I give reviews before tests, I teach the material before the test.  If one of my students fails the test, I take part of the responsibility for it - I will tutor them, and help them until they succeed, because that is my job.  There are humane, and inhumane ways to teach concepts.  Most concepts can be learned without pain.

I agree.  And yet despite this, many of us don't learn "without pain."  

"Opposition in all things" is apparently an eternal concept.  I think we are better of seeking to account for it in our lives.  Denying it or complaining about it doesn't seem to do much good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

From the perspective of the toddler though, vaccines have no purpose.  

Not only that, from a toddler's perspective, vaccines are bad.  They are wrong.  Such is the flaw endemic to finite thinking.

Suffering is part and parcel of this mortal experience.  Much suffering, I think, arises as a consequence of wickedness.  Our own, and that of others.  But I think we need to understand that this is all part of the Plan.  I think these remarks by President George Q. Cannon are apt:

Quote

“The Lord our God has sent us here to get experience in these things so that we may know the good from the evil and be able to close our hearts against the evil. … It is true that some have greater power of resistance than others, but everyone has the power to close his heart against doubt, against darkness, against unbelief, against depression, against anger, against hatred, against jealousy, against malice, against envy. God has given this power unto all of us, and we can gain still greater power by calling upon Him for that which we lack. If it were not so, how could we be condemned for giving way to wrong influences?

“There could be no condemnation for our doing what we could not help; but we can help yielding to wrong influences and being quarrelsome and selfish. We can help giving way to the spirit of theft, and we can resist the spirit of lust. God has given us power to resist these things, that our hearts may be kept free from them and also from doubt; and when Satan comes and assails us, it is our privilege to say, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan, for I have no lot nor portion in you, and you have no part in me. I am in the service of God, and I am going to serve Him, and you can do what you please. It is no use you presenting yourself with your blandishments to me. You come and try to insinuate into my heart evil thoughts about the servants of God or about the work of God, and I will not listen to you; I will close my heart against you. …’

“Whenever darkness fills our minds, we may know that we are not possessed of the Spirit of God, and we must get rid of it. When we are filled with the Spirit of God, we are filled with joy, with peace and with happiness no matter what our circumstances may be; for it is a spirit of cheerfulness and of happiness.” (Gospel Truth, 1:19–20.)

So it seems that our objective should be to learn to cope with and endure and mitigate and overcome suffering, not avoid it altogether.

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just because the toddler cannot comprehend a purpose though, does not mean that the purpose doesn't exist.   Does it make sense to attempt to answer 'the problem of evil' without acknowledging that there is a lot that we simply cannot comprehend at this time? 

Well said.  I think a lot of the problems with the "Problem of Evil" is our blinkered and finite perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, pain is temporary.  And I think the point is for everyone to have the opportunity to progress.

As for the need for enduring suffering (that is, facing opposition), I don't think we can second-guess in this way. 

Everyone is "saved at the end" (everyone will be resurrected, everyone will be given a kingdom of glory) except for those who do not want it (Sons of Perdition).

According to Mosiah 4:27, Alma 1:26, and D&C 10:4, no one is.  I believe that to be eminently true.

The Parable of the Talents accounts for this, I think.

The justice of God accounts for this, I think.  See also D&C 123:12.

I agree.  And yet despite this, many of us don't learn "without pain."  

"Opposition in all things" is apparently an eternal concept.  I think we are better of seeking to account for it in our lives.  Denying it or complaining about it doesn't seem to do much good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pain is only temporary if you are heartless - if you do not care about those who "did not make it".  Any kind of an eternal heirachry is heartless, prideful, and evil.  It is equivalent to the caste system in some countries -  (hierarchy (from the Greek hierarchia, "rule of a high priest", from hierarkhes) At least in Hinduism, people are not eternally condemned to remain in one caste over another.  

It is not second guessing - there are in fact many spirits who are able to progress without feeling much pain.  Do you condemn those who suffer more as being "lesser spirits who needed more refinement"?  That is a horror, and a prideful self-righteous view.

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

god has seen fit not to educate the masses.  

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order

There is no wisdom, nor order in the way things are done here on earth.

and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, 

I agree that no one is better than anyone else - no one should be eternally honored above everyone else, the different degrees of glory turn heaven into hell - it turns the whole thing into some horrible caste system.

Edited November 3, 2017 by changed

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Pain is only temporary if you are heartless

"Pain" is an extraordinarily broad term.  It encompasses a huge spectrum.  I acknowledge that.

But the point remains that all pain is, in the end, transient.  Temporary.  Because this life is transient and temporary.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

- if you do not care about those who "did not make it". 

This is an emotional accusation, not a reasoned argument.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Any kind of an eternal heirachry is heartless, prideful, and evil. 

That is not self-evident.  At all.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

It is equivalent to the caste system in some countries -  (hierarchy (from the Greek hierarchia, "rule of a high priest", from hierarkhes) At least in Hinduism, people are not eternally condemned to remain in one caste over another.  

This is an emotional accusation, not a reasoned argument.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

It is not second guessing - there are in fact many spirits who are able to progress without feeling much pain. 

We are all able to progress to some extent without pain.  Pain and suffering are not ends unto themselves.  They are the means of growth.  How and why and to what extent they apply to each of us varies greatly.  God knows that and accounts for that.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Do you condemn those who suffer more as being "lesser spirits who needed more refinement"? 

No.  Who are you quoting here ("'lesser spirits who needed more refinement'")?  Certainly not me.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

That is a horror, and a prideful self-righteous view.

You are just ranting now.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

god has seen fit not to educate the masses.  

I don't claim to fully understand the Plan of Salvation.  But I understand enough of it to accept it and believe in it and strive to live in accordance with it.

Demeaning and disparaging God is not part of the Plan.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order

There is no wisdom, nor order in the way things are done here on earth.

and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, 

I agree that no one is better than anyone else - no one should be eternally honored above everyone else, the different degrees of glory turn heaven into hell - it turns the whole thing into some horrible caste system.

I think you have a very flawed perception of the Plan of Salvation.  I hope you give some time over to giving it some real study and contemplation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But I suppose a painful life is not a first world problem, and most cannot even imagine it.  We are very fortunate.

Yea, this is the stance of most people, "not my problem", I guess god loves you more than his other children.  ... only a "little" flock... so little, so few? sounds like an imperfect plan to me.

Anyone who feels comfortable and blessed for their "privileged" position in this life are heartless, prideful, hypocritical, Sadducees and Pharisees.

Edited November 3, 2017 by changed

[changed]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Pain" is an extraordinarily broad term.  It encompasses a huge spectrum.  I acknowledge that.

But the point remains that all pain is, in the end, transient.  Temporary.  Because this life is transient and temporary.

This is an emotional accusation, not a reasoned argument.

That is not self-evident.  At all.

This is an emotional accusation, not a reasoned argument.

We are all able to progress to some extent without pain.  Pain and suffering are not ends unto themselves.  They are the means of growth.  How and why and to what extent they apply to each of us varies greatly.  God knows that and accounts for that.

No.  Who are you quoting here ("'lesser spirits who needed more refinement'")?  Certainly not me.

You are just ranting now.

I don't claim to fully understand the Plan of Salvation.  But I understand enough of it to accept it and believe in it and strive to live in accordance with it.

Demeaning and disparaging God is not part of the Plan.

I think you have a very flawed perception of the Plan of Salvation.  I hope you give some time over to giving it some real study and contemplation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Love is an emotion, as is happiness and joy.  Are you afraid of emotions?  of emotional arguments?  emotions are real.  emotions are perhaps the most important thing we have and can understand.  to ignore emotions, to not care about the welfare of the majority of the people on earth, I suppose that is the only way to come to terms with the situation.  Is this a rant?  This is a nightmare.  This world, and living conditions and life of the majority of the people on this earth is a nightmare.  

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Yea, this is the stance of most people, "not my problem", I guess god loves you more than his other children.  ... only a "little" flock... so little, so few? sounds like an imperfect plan to me.

Anyone who feels comfortable and blessed for their "privileged" position in this life are heartless, prideful, hypocritical, Sadducees and Pharisees.

Boy it sure must feel really uncomfortable to be using a computer with internet from the comfort un-comfort of your own home or office.  How many cars does your family have?  Food in the fridge?  Electrical and plumbing with clean water? Air conditioning and heating system? Closet full of clothes and multiple pairs of shoes?  Cell phone?  Television?  Man, you must be miserable knowing that you could be doing more but are not!

It is easy to blame God for the problem and point the finger at everybody else while you sit in relative luxury.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The world would be better off without mosquitoes, fleas, pimples, and rap music. Why does he not fix those, too?

Well the latter is due to free will which I think we can establish as necessary. However outside of their place in the ecosystem, I think worrying about the role of mosquitos, fleas and other such things is a good question. Likewise pimples. I know you are meaning them to be a criticism, but lets say God gives dreams to many people 5000 years ago about the printing press, about the germ theory of disease, and about common antibiotics. If we're free today and have sufficient suffering to fulfill this plan of salvation then giving knowledge about these things along with commandments regarding racism and sexism would have made everyone's life much, much, much better for billions of people. Again all he has to do is add these in to the Law of Moses.

So while I suspect you meant to ridicule I think this actually is a strong argument - one I certainly don't have a good answer for.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

But I suppose a painful life is not a first world problem, and most cannot even imagine it.  We are very fortunate.

Yea, this is the stance of most people, "not my problem",

I think we can dispense with the sanctimony.  Acknowledging the struggles faced by others is nowhere near a "not my problem"-type response.

5 minutes ago, changed said:

I guess god loves you more than his other children.  ... only a "little" flock... so little, so few? sounds like an imperfect plan to me.

I think we can dispense with the bitter (and false) accusations.  Acknowledging the struggles faced by other is nowhere near suggesting that "God loves you more than his other children."

5 minutes ago, changed said:

Anyone who feels comfortable and blessed for their "privileged" position in this life are heartless, prideful, hypocritical, Sadducees and Pharisees.

Oh, the irony.  We're wading through it hip-deep here.

The LDS Church teaches us to care for our fellow man.  Faithful Latter-day Saints spend huge amounts of their time, means and effort to help others.  My dad served a mission in Argentina for three years in his youth, then after retirement he and my mom served a 2-year mission in Samoa and Texas.  Just last week they left for their second 2-year mission, this time in Zimbabwe.  My wife's parents, meanwhile, also left last week to serve a senior mission in Texas.  I presently have a son on a mission, and a nephew on a mission.  I served a mission in Taiwan, and I and my wife plan to serve multiple missions after we retire.  I also have family members (siblings and siblings-in-law) who have served full-time missions in Brasil, Samoa, Alabama, Romania, Iowa, the Navajo Reservation, Vanuatu, The Philippines, Venezuela, Taiwan, Florida, Missouri, and Alaska.  All of these efforts were voluntary and self-funded.  These folks spent 18-24 months living amongst and working with and serving mostly people of modest means or outright poverty.  On my mission I regularly taught free English classes, volunteered at a Catholic orphanage for handicapped "orphans" (abandoned by their parents), volunteered at a nursing home (we helped bathe and clean up after bedridden elderly men), volunteered at hospitals, cleaned up parks and cemeteries, and much more.  My family members all performed similar service to their fellow brothers and sisters in their missions.  And by "brothers and sister" I mean literally anyone who would let us help.  No differentiation by education, or financial condition, or skin color, or caste, or anything else.

And that's just the full-time volunteer work.  My dad has spent countless hours serving others in bishoprics, on high councils, as a home teacher, and so on.  My mom has done the same in Relief Society callings, as a visiting teacher, and so on.  She also spent nearly twenty years creating and working on an annual "Student Showcase" that each year involves over 8,000 elementary school children and teaches them about personal responsibility, patriotism, and other wonderful attributes.  My sister and her husband, a pediatrician, spent a month this last summer providing free medical care to impoverished Pacific Islanders.  They are making arrangements for my BIL to take an extended (1-2 year) sabbatical from his medical practice so they can move their family to the South Pacific and continue that effort.  In my extended family we have people presently serving in Relief Society Presidencies, High Councils, bishoprics, Primaries, Sunday Schools, and, of course, also serving as Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers.  And this volunteerism is a standard part of their lives.  And it's without pay, and mostly without any particular praise or recognition.  And they make these efforts day after day.  Week after week.  Month after month.  Year after year.  And all of these efforts are in addition to holding down jobs, getting schooling, raising children, and so on.

All of the above is unique in another way: It's not unique.  Faithful Latter-day Saints the world over are serving others in the same ways my extended family does.  Regularly.  Without recognition.  Without pay.  And they do it for the same reason: Love of their fellow man.  Love that is not circumscribed by skin color, or creed, or financial status.

And all of these faithful Latter-day Saints are doing these things based on counsel they have received from prophets and apostles.

And yet despite all this, "Changed" comes along and presumes to rise up in judgment of people he does not know.

The mind reels.

-Smac

[changed]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

Boy it sure must feel really uncomfortable to be using a computer with internet from the comfort un-comfort of your own home or office.  How many cars does your family have?  Food in the fridge?  Electrical and plumbing with clean water? Air conditioning and heating system? Closet full of clothes and multiple pairs of shoes?  Cell phone?  Television?  Man, you must be miserable knowing that you could be doing more but are not!

It is easy to blame God for the problem and point the finger at everybody else while you sit in relative luxury.

It is hard to believe god is perfect and loving in the face of so much suffering - you are also sitting at a computer, how do you cope?  

I actually do work pretty hard to help others, I work with immigrants, am at a minority and low-income serving school.  I work long hours, have reversed the poverty cycle through education for a few families, and am doing what I can.

[changed]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we can dispense with the sanctimony.  Acknowledging the struggles faced by others is nowhere near a "not my problem"-type response.

I think we can dispense with the bitter (and false) accusations.  Acknowledging the struggles faced by other is nowhere near suggesting that "God loves you more than his other children."

Oh, the irony.  We're wading through it hip-deep here.

The LDS Church teaches us to care for our fellow man.  Faithful Latter-day Saints spend huge amounts of their time, means and effort to help others.  My dad served a mission in Argentina for three years in his youth, then after retirement he and my mom served a 2-year mission in Samoa and Texas.  Just last week they left for their second 2-year mission, this time in Zimbabwe.  My wife's parents, meanwhile, also left last week to serve a senior mission in Texas.  I presently have a son on a mission, and a nephew on a mission.  I served a mission in Taiwan, and I and my wife plan to serve multiple missions after we retire.  I also have family members (siblings and siblings-in-law) who have served full-time missions in Brasil, Samoa, Alabama, Romania, Iowa, the Navajo Reservation, Vanuatu, The Philippines, Venezuela, Taiwan, Florida, Missouri, and Alaska.  All of these efforts were voluntary and self-funded.  These folks spent 18-24 months living amongst and working with and serving mostly people of modest means or outright poverty.  On my mission I regularly taught free English classes, volunteered at a Catholic orphanage for handicapped "orphans" (abandoned by their parents), volunteered at a nursing home (we helped bathe and clean up after bedridden elderly men), volunteered at hospitals, cleaned up parks and cemeteries, and much more.  My family members all performed similar service to their fellow brothers and sisters in their missions.  And by "brothers and sister" I mean literally anyone who would let us help.  No differentiation by education, or financial condition, or skin color, or caste, or anything else.

And that's just the full-time volunteer work.  My dad has spent countless hours serving others in bishoprics, on high councils, as a home teacher, and so on.  My mom has done the same in Relief Society callings, as a visiting teacher, and so on.  She also spent nearly twenty years creating and working on an annual "Student Showcase" that each year involves over 8,000 elementary school children and teaches them about personal responsibility, patriotism, and other wonderful attributes.  My sister and her husband, a pediatrician, spent a month this last summer providing free medical care to impoverished Pacific Islanders.  They are making arrangements for my BIL to take an extended (1-2 year) sabbatical from his medical practice so they can move their family to the South Pacific and continue that effort.  In my extended family we have people presently serving in Relief Society Presidencies, High Councils, bishoprics, Primaries, Sunday Schools, and, of course, also serving as Home Teachers and Visiting Teachers.  And this volunteerism is a standard part of their lives.  And it's without pay, and mostly without any particular praise or recognition.  And they make these efforts day after day.  Week after week.  Month after month.  Year after year.  And all of these efforts are in addition to holding down jobs, getting schooling, raising children, and so on.

All of the above is unique in another way: It's not unique.  Faithful Latter-day Saints the world over are serving others in the same ways my extended family does.  Regularly.  Without recognition.  Without pay.  And they do it for the same reason: Love of their fellow man.  Love that is not circumscribed by skin color, or creed, or financial status.

And all of these faithful Latter-day Saints are doing these things based on counsel they have received from prophets and apostles.

And yet despite all this, "Changed" comes along and presumes to rise up in judgment of people he does not know.

The mind reels.

-Smac

"little flock" is not a false accusation if you support the scriptures - that is who is favored, that is who makes it, a "little" flock.  yes - there are many, within and without the church, who volunteer, but it is not enough, and the suffering continues.  how many have you been unable to help?  how many have you met who are beyond their limits of endurance?  who are permanently scarred and insane by what they have been through?  I cannot believe that people "will not be tested beyond their limits" I have seen too many who have been taken beyond their limits.  I have now been dragged beyond my limits too.

Heaven is not heaven if everyone is not there, together, with the same glory for all - is that such a hard concept?

My gripe is not with Mormons, not with any good person who is doing what they can to help.  My gripe is with the degrees of glory, with the incomplete plan that does not save everyone, with the needless pointless suffering.  I am not an atheist, I know there is something else out there, I just no longer believe god is actually loving, just, all-powerful, merciful etc.  it seems like heaven is probably a reflection of what is currently on the earth - on earth as it is in heaven...

Edited November 3, 2017 by changed

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, changed said:

Love is an emotion, as is happiness and joy.  Are you afraid of emotions?  of emotional arguments? 

No.  I'm just not particularly persuaded by them.  "You must accept my argument because I am angry!" is not persuasive reasoning.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

emotions are real.  emotions are perhaps the most important thing we have and can understand. 

I believe emotions are important.  But so is dispassionate and reasoned discussion.

As an attorney, I regularly deal with disputes about very real and important issues.  Emotions are often part of those disputes.  But believe me, nobody wants the judge to render a decision based on that judge's personal emotions.  

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

Quote

Alice More: Arrest him! 
Sir Thomas More: For what? 
Alice More: He's dangerous! 
Will Roper: For lying, lord, he's a spy! 
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad! 
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that. 
Will Roper: There is - God's law. 
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him. 
Alice More: While you talk he's gone! 
Sir Thomas More: And go he should if he were the devil himself until he broke the law. 
Will Roper: So, now you'd give the devil benefit of law? 
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil? 
Will Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that? 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake. 

More was a moral man.  He knew the risks of letting his emotions predominate over his intellect, and over the law.

Just food for thought.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

to ignore emotions,

I don't.  I just try to keep them in their proper sphere and element.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

to not care about the welfare of the majority of the people on earth, I suppose that is the only way to come to terms with the situation. 

Nobody is doing that.  Nobody.  You are bearing false witness.  You are declaring a falsehood.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

Is this a rant? 

From Dictionary.com:

Quote

verb (used without object)

1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:

The demagogue ranted for hours.

Yes, your post is a rant.  It is not helpful.  It is not productive.  It contains false accusations and acrimony.  It does nothing to alleviate suffering in the world.  It does nothing to make the world a better place.

It's just a rant.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

This is a nightmare.  This world, and living conditions and life of the majority of the people on this earth is a nightmare.  

And your response to those circumstances is . . . to spew falsehoods against Mormons?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

"little flock" is not a false accusation if you support the scriptures - that is who is favored, that is who makes it, a "little" flock.  yes - there are many, within and without the church, who volunteer, but it is not enough, and the suffering continues. 

And your response to these circumstances is . . . to rise up and condemn others.

I am curious as to how that improves the dire circumstances of our fellow man.  I don't think it does.

Quote

how many have you been unable to help? 

Lots.  But I still do what I can to help.

Quote

how many have you met who are beyond their limits of endurance? 

Lots.  But I still do what I can to help.

Quote

who are permanently scarred and insane by what they have been through? 

Lots.  But I still do what I can to help.

Quote

I cannot believe that people "will not be tested beyond their limits" I have seen too many who have been taken beyond their limits.  I have now been dragged beyond my limits too.

I am sorry for whatever struggle you are currently facing.  But you do not help yourself or anyone else by rising up and condemning others, including Mormons who have a track record of devoting substantial time, means and effort to serve their fellow human beings.

Quote

Heaven is not heaven if everyone is not there, together, with the same glory for all - is that such a hard concept?

Again, I think you have a very flawed perception of the Plan of Salvation.  I hope you give some time over to giving it some real study and contemplation.

You presently seem very angry and embittered.  I don't think these emotions govern us well.  Faith, and reason, and a resolve to match conduct with convictions, will do far more to alleviate the suffering of our brothers and sisters than acrimonious rants ever will.

Quote

My gripe is not with Mormons, not with any good person who is doing what they can to help.  

Your posts do not communicate that.  At all.  To the contrary...

Quote

My gripe is with the degrees of glory, with the incomplete plan that does not save everyone, with the needless pointless suffering.  

So you are angry at God.  I see that.  But again, I think you have a very flawed perception of the Plan of Salvation.  I encourage you to give yourself some time for calm introspection, study, and prayer.  And find ways to serve others.  

I say this because I am surrounded in my life by people who have faith in God and His goodness, and who then go out and act on that faith and serve their fellow man.  And they also are working to teach their families and those within their spheres of influence to lead good and virtuous and productive lives.  In other words, much of the goodness I see being done is by people who are acting on faith.  Not acrimony.  Not bitter accusations.  Not rage.  Faith.  

Quote

I am not an atheist, I know there is something else out there, I just no longer believe god is actually loving, just, all-powerful, merciful etc.  it seems like heaven is probably a reflection of what is currently on the earth - on earth as it is in heaven...

I think you are speaking more from a position of anger and resentment and bitterness.  These can cloud one's perspective.

I encourage you to reconsider your harsh words.  Perhaps it's time for some calm, some study and prayer.  Some unfettered service to others.

I wish you well, brother (sister?).  I really do.

Thanks,

Smac

Edited November 3, 2017 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/2/2017 at 9:22 AM, Gray said:

 

Quote

On 10/31/2017 at 1:54 PM, bluebell said:

It sounds like the problem of evil is that the premise of the issue supposes that an all powerful, knowing, and good God mustintervene to stop evil.  Am I understanding that right?

Yes, I think that's right. If God was all powerful but NOT all good, then the problem of evil wouldn't be a problem. 

I think even the "all" part of the equation isn't strictly necessary. If God is sufficiently good, sufficiently knowing, and sufficiently good, that's hard to square with the state of the world today. 

This is the classic problem addressed by Lehi in 2 Nephi 2:11-29,

Quote

. . . it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, .., righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. ...And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. ... And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.  Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.... And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation,...  Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself..... choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;  And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

God has no choice in the matter,.  The law must be obeyed.  Even in the face of horrific evil and suffering, as we see worldwide right now.  Just in Africa, for example, millions are dying of hunger & thirst today, and the few aid workers available will be lucky to save a few.  The same is true of the unfortunate Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.  I can assure you that things will only get worse.  This is a test of our resolve to help.  To do righteousness.  We certainly have the resources to save our brothers, but will we?

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2017/march/16-million-people-at-risk-of-dying-as-famine-grips-3-african-nations .

Edited November 3, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, changed said:

It is hard to believe god is perfect and loving in the face of so much suffering - you are also sitting at a computer, how do you cope?  

I actually do work pretty hard to help others, I work with immigrants, am at a minority and low-income serving school.  I work long hours, have reversed the poverty cycle through education for a few families, and am doing what I can.

Changed, I know you have a good heart.  That is evident. 

I agree that belief does not come easy at times.  However, I have faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ.  I believe that Christ has willingly suffered with us through all things.  There is no pain, illness, or other form of physical/emotional suffering that he himself has not endured.  Because of that belief, even though I don't understand the reason and purpose of all suffering, faith in the atonement helps me to trust that there is a reason and purpose for it.  Think about it, God could put an end to all suffering (and thus save himself from having to suffer with us), but instead he chose to drink the bitter cup.  You see, that belief makes it impossible for me to believe that there is not a purpose to all of this.  On top of that, I have personal knowledge and experience with God's loves for me, even through my darkest hours.  I cannot deny His love, He has proven Himself to me over, and over, and over.  There is nothing in this world as great as the love that I have felt from Him.  It surpasses my darkest hour.  There is no question in my mind that God loves me, and my personal suffering does not diminish that love.  He chose to suffer with me because he loves me and because it is necessary for reasons that I don't understand fully. His bowels are filled with compassion - there is no question about that in my mind. 

Quote

you are also sitting at a computer, how do you cope?  

I don't think it a sin to enjoy the comforts of life.  I recognize my blessings and do not reject them, and am not tormented by them.  I use them to bless my life, my families life, and those who are less fortunate.  I don't believe in the extremes of hedonism or asceticism.  I feel grateful for what I have.

[bluebell]

When we are considering the problem of evil, should we take into account how living in a Fallen world impacts us?  I'm wondering if some of the suffering that we live through is just a consequence of the type of world that we live in.  

If that's true, is it reasonable to expect God to remove those consequences from us?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, changed said:

Yea, this is the stance of most people, "not my problem", I guess god loves you more than his other children.  ... only a "little" flock... so little, so few? sounds like an imperfect plan to me.

Anyone who feels comfortable and blessed for their "privileged" position in this life are heartless, prideful, hypocritical, Sadducees and Pharisees.

Totally twisted what I said.  We all experience misery and pain and that is part of the plan, no one escapes it  NO ONE!!!

[Gray]

On 11/1/2017 at 9:26 AM, 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). 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.

I think Mormonism at least has a less problematic God regarding this issue than most theisms that have a God capable of intervening. If the stories in scripture of God's dramatic intervention in the world were to be understood as metaphor, and it was said that God was powerless to intervene, then the problem would be solved.

[Gray]

On 11/1/2017 at 9:31 AM, clarkgoble said:

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.

But they're pretty dominant in mainstream western theism, right?

 

Quote

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 I intimated before, I'm not philosophically well read (or let's face it, read), so I can't speak meaningfully to most of this. I just figure, spirituality and meaning are personal and subjective. My theology is meaningful to me, and I don't need it broadcast from a conscious being out in the universe somewhere for it to be "real". Sacredness and the spiritual are very real to me, but those terms also don't have any supernatural or quazi-supernatural connotations for me.

 

Quote

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.

Yes, but most people would dismiss this kind of God as a relic of paganism. Of course most people aren't aware that there's very little difference between the religion of the early Hebrews and their Canaanite neighbors, if you go back far enough. I don't have a problem with this idea at all, but it doesn't do much for me anymore.

Mormonism isn't totally free from Greek influence either - there's a lot of it in the NT, which of course influences our own notions about the soul and increasingly about the nature of God.

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

So morality is determined by majority rule?

Yes and no. I mean what people call morality is definitely determined that way. But some systems of morality can have more objective components, even if they're based on a subjective premise.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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

Of course not. Jim Crow laws are not the best way to foster a peaceful/happy society.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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?

It's not moral. I don't claim that on objective grounds, but on subjective grounds. Moral suasion  played a big part in abolitionist movements, and it's all based on subjective arguments.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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

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

No. For me, morality is whatever leads to the greatest human well-being and potential. But I have no objective basis to say that. That's simply the nature of morality.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

This is entirely circular. And of course in LDS theology God is a subjective being, not an objective being. I don't think he's actually omnipotent and omniscient either.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

I think this is mainstream Christian theology leaking into LDS theology. I'm not saying you're confusing the two - that goes on in general conference too. But in "classical" LDS theology, God can cease to be God and he's not all powerful.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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):

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 .

 

 

Yes, that's one way to interpret it. Could God choose to be variable and disobey law though? If he can't, he's not omnipotent. If he does, he ceases to be God. That implies that morality is outside of God's control.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

If God commanded such a thing, would he cease to be God? Is God able to command such a thing?

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

Is it? Do we have objective access to God's morality?

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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)

I don't think God has command of it in LDS theology - God has to obey it. Remember, God wasn't always God.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

But we don't have any objective access to God's morality, even if that were true. Revelation is entirely subjective and personal. So we're back where we started with subjective morality.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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.

This is subjective access to God. We don't have scientific instruments that give each person the same reading. Different people, even different prophets, see something different about God's morality.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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?

The differences have to be hammered out through moral reasoning. You're looking for an authority to define it for you. But arguments from authority are ultimately fallacious.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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?

Moral defenses of slavery fail. Community Y is correct of course.

 

On 11/1/2017 at 10:22 AM, smac97 said:

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

But that's what I mean when I say morality. And it grounds our conclusions in something more objective.

 

 

[Gray]

On 11/1/2017 at 12:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

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. 

 

Yes, that's my system of morality too.

But I don't know that some of this platonic stuff isn't floating around the Book of Mormon - the rhetoric on justice and mercy certainly has that character (also influenced seemingly by relatively recent Christian notions of atonement). Of course even if the author of the BOM had that it mind, we don't have to interpret it that way.

[Gray]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

By imposing his will he becomes part of the evil. 

But in LDS theology he DOES impose his will.

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

No way, Jose.  In an infinite regress one can never posit which is first.  Why?  Because there can logically be no first in infinite regress.

Yes, but each God is ultimately brought into being by a universe.

 

Quote

Lisa Zyga, “ No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning,” Phys.org, Feb 9, 2015, online at http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html .

Tia Ghose, “Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning,” LiveScience.com, February 28, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/big-bang-deflated-universe-may-had-no-beginning-140017504.html .  "In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."

I think there's a long way to go before any theory is able to topple the Big Bang.

Edited November 4, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:43 AM, bluebell said:

How do we know that that premise is true?  

For example, from a toddler's perspective and with their limited knowledge, don't vaccinations appear evil?  And wouldn't a toddler, if they could express such a thing, expect that no good parent would ever knowingly subject a them to such pain?

Yes, but of course in that case how can a toddler know their parent is actually good? Their parent could be an evil serial killer, for all they know.