Why would God create humans to be natural men and women that are His enemies?

[MiserereNobis]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As the philosophy instructor I used to work with confirmed to me after our conversation on this topic late one afternoon, the Restoration has completely solved the 'problem of evil'.

 

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This entails two of the most profound theological concepts ever known to man, placing the problem of evil in the hands of each individual, and not blaming God.  How different from the severe problem of theodicy in normative Judeo-Christian theology.

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

While I believe I can learn from suffering and misfortune in the lives of others, I don't believe God creates that suffering and misfortune in order to teach me.  And I don't believe that anyone believe that a situation like the one you've described above would be viewed as a good thing by anyone.

We live in a world where random things, bad things, evil things, happen all the time. 

The Book of Mormon calls on us to "mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort" (Mosiah 18:9).  As we do that we grow and come closer to Christ. 

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

 

Randomness and chaos are part of a fallen world, and Matthew was thus struck by lightning. The Lord atoned for this and so he will learn the Gospel in the spirit world, have temple ordinances performed in his behalf, be resurrected, and receive a glory he is willing to receive.

Whether randomness and chaos are laws of nature, or the absence thereof, doesn’t matter in the atonement of Christ. That is how all-powerful, benevolent and all-knowing He is.

The amount of non-random wickedness and intentional destruction and chaos are a function of our choices and so the range of wickedness and disorder is variable for the individual, community, society, and global levels.

Oddly perhaps, the answer to the problem of evil is faith. Perhaps the problem is with theodicy, the incorrect assumption God must be vindicated.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

 

Have we determined that death actually is evil?  If birth isn't evil I'm not sure how death is, in and of itself (such as with a lightning strike).  Both are just transitions from one place to another.  Like walking through a door to a different room. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

 

I am not claiming that I have the answer to evil in general, but in this specific scenario while tragic, can such an event be called "evil"?  I think evil is characterized by immoral or unrighteous behavior.  

Some may judge God's behavior to be evil/immoral for not intervening when he could, but I think that judgment is not attainable or defensible from our limited mortal perspective. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

But do our incorrect choices make us an enemy of God?

I think @Duncan answers this question perfectly:

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

One thing to consider is the scripture says the natural man is an enemy to God, it doesn't say that God is an enemy to the natural man

I have been startled on a number of occasions to discover that people whom I consider friends were in 'enmity' towards me. It happens. It's not about me; it's about them and their choices. I like to give them space to get over it. God seems quite happy to do the same.

Quote

Imo correction rather than punishment is what's called for.

Of course! In part, that's because God is never in enmity with us. That's not what motivates Him. Punishment isn't His thing. By means of the Atonement, He's put in place a mechanism specifically to protect us from punishment. But like all wise parents, He is willing to let a tiny bit of the natural consequences of sin to sneak past the Shield of Christ specifically because sometimes that's the only thing that wakes us up.

And again based on personal experience, the instant I wake up, the 'punishment' is withdrawn.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

God sent us to a fallen world where by our nature we would sin and become God's enemy.

Or we had already fallen.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening). I say this as someone who has spent some time academically studying this (I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy).

The first and biggest flaw is natural evil. How do you account for Matthew, a bus boy at a restaurant I used to be a regular at, being killed by a lightning strike his very first evening in Missouri where he had moved to go to college? All he did was step out to get something out of his truck. He was 17 years old.

Your answer to Matthew's death seems to be that those that knew him needed to go through the difficulty of his passing in order to grow. In other words, it wasn't actually bad that he died, but a good thing for everyone else that he did. If this is your view, I kindly point you to Voltaire's satire Candide and the idea of "the best of all possible worlds."

The free-will theodicy that you also espouse (evil in the hands of each individual) also doesn't address natural evil. It also has it's major problems, too. It is a fairly common theodicy, so it has been deeply analyzed and criticized.

You also claimed that there must be a balance, that we must know wickedness to know righteousness. But do we really need to have so much wickedness? Couldn't there be one less instance of wickedness? I mean, imagine if Mao had only murdered 44 million people instead of 45 million. Did we really need that extra million killed to have balance between good and evil? If so, then I point you again to Voltaire and that this theodicy is simply saying there really isn't evil.

I am a faithful believer in God. I do not have an answer to the problem of evil. I am wary of those who do, because every theodicy I have studied has obvious flaws. I understand people losing faith over it. I thank God that it has not hurt my faith.

Evil is often nothing more than a value judgment, part of a set of preferences.  I even heard a female masochist on KUER today vouching for pain as a good thing, which is reminiscent of that famous scene in which T. E. Lawrence seems to enjoy placing his hand in a candle flame.

Lehi's Law of Opposition in 2 Nephi 2, however, seems to take very seriously the universal nature of opposites -- as part of natural law.  Since LDS theology likewise describes God as subject to natural law, one begins to realize that He has limited powers.  He and his human children are all necessary beings, rather than contingent, which means that they are each responsible for their own acts.  At the same time, the natural universe is a very harsh and unforgiving place.  Our only saving grace is that temporal suffering and death are not absolute, and all humans are eternal (and coeternal with God).  There is nothing imaginary about human suffering, and human existence can be described as catastrophic in most instances.  As Thomas Hobbes said:  "which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, i. xiii. 9).  Somehow, the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ gets us off the hook, gives us a hope of returning to our Father in Heaven.  The price?  Acceptance of His grace.

Thus, even though I fully agree with Hannah Arendt that evil is banal, I am not stuck in some existential dilemma with no exit.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/20/2021 at 4:57 PM, Teancum said:

Why would God create creatures that are his enemy? So let's talk about it.

 

Meh.

I'm Pretty busy of late.

He just wants us to reach our full potential, and create our worlds, ie: getting our act together.

Fill the measure of our creation creation and have joy. And inherit all he has.

All that horrible stuff.  You got a kid that is wasting his life?

How do you give them a wake up call?

Keep coddling them?

No, you tell them they are wasting their lives!  And that you want to help them by following The Plan He has for them to fill their purpose in life instead of wallowing in negativity.

"Enemy"? 

Well at least it will get their attention!

And who knows how nuanced that translation is?  Not me anyway.

He just wants the best for us!

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening).

So tsunamis are "evil"?

[MiserereNobis]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So tsunamis are "evil"?

Your wife dies in one. There’s an all powerful God that could have spared her (you prayed for help, didn’t you?). You tell me. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Your wife dies in one. There’s an all powerful God that could have spared her (you prayed for help, didn’t you?). You tell me. 

As a Latter-day Saint, I'm inclined to say no for a number of reasons, one of them being my understanding of death itself not being an evil.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I'm inclined to say no for a number of reasons, one of them being my understanding of death itself not being an evil.

Okay, she is instead hit by flying debris and ends up paralyzed from the neck down.

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, she is instead hit by flying debris and ends up paralyzed from the neck down.

A dreadful situation. But where is the rebellion against God that is the defining characteristic of evil?

We are left with people presuming that God is evil because he doesn't protect His offspring from every random harm or suffering, which presumption itself assumes a purpose for our existence that is outside of Restoration doctrine:

Quote

And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

A life free from all pain and privation is not the ultimate good to the Saints. The alternative is to determine that the father who puts a child on the back of pushbike knowing full well that she or he will fall off many times before finally learning to balance is engaged in evil.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A dreadful situation. But where is the rebellion against God that is the defining characteristic of evil?

We are left with people presuming that God is evil because he doesn't protect His offspring from every random harm or suffering, which presumption itself assumes a purpose for our existence that is outside of Restoration doctrine:

A life free from all pain and privation is not the ultimate good to the Saints. The alternative is to determine that the father who puts a child on the back of pushbike knowing full well that she or he will fall off many times before finally learning to balance is engaged in evil.

If this teaching is generalized the effect is horrifying. It basically tells you that what is evil is actually good because the results are good. That suffering is good as long as good comes of it. Does this reality end with death or is hell inherently good because of what it does? Perhaps the everlasting burnings of exaltation in Celestial glory are still endless but also torturously painful but God discovered long ago that this kind of torment is good for the sufferer so enduring it forever is, in fact, good.

Of course the difference with the pushbike example is that God knows who will and will not fall off in advance. I also find a weird tension between the idea that God is ‘letting us off the leash’ to learn on our own and then you turn to the gospel with admonitions to ‘pray always’ and ‘look unto God with every thought’. I think the whole “go out on your own to learn to be more independent” teaching might be an analogy that took on a life of its own.

Then again, I could be way off. I am way too cynical in these areas. I don’t trust myself so other people probably shouldn’t either.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Your wife dies in one. There’s an all powerful God that could have spared her (you prayed for help, didn’t you?). You tell me. 

No evil. I don't see evil at all here.

Accidents can happen in a world which is undetermined and God Himself has chosen immanence voluntarily in order to tutor us, his children. Trials are opportunities for growth, certainly not "evil".

Death is a mere assignment to the other side, her progression continues. I will see her in a few years, and we are sealed, we will continue our relationship and progession through eternity, and I will, through trials, grow in understanding better the pain of others while I am here alone. I will know loneliness as I have never known it before 

I can become more like the savior by learning more about mental trials and pain who took upon himself ALL TRIALS of humanity, meaning I am NEVER alone in trials, the savior has been there before. And now, this could be an opportunity to grow by emulating Him. 

No "evil" at all! Why reify what we don't like into some kind of "entity" to balance with  "good"?  These are not cosmic forces, they are adjectives!

Do we worry about "the problem of tasty vs bitter?"   Those are also adjectives, not Cosmic Forces.

This again grows from Greek philosophy, 2500 years ago, related to Platonic Forms where every word corresponded to a metaphysical Idea, which was more real than it's paltry manifestation. The Idea was eternal, our reality a simple shadow of the original perfect Idea, say of "Goodness"

So Goodness itself becomes an Entity, and that Entity IS actually God. Guess who Evil is?

People do things we PERCEIVE as "evil" ; goodness and evil are not metphysical entities 

Contemporary philosophy sees these as words and concepts which make up the world, not as it is, but but how it APPEARS to WE humans.

Abstractions are now seen as human linguistic creations, not metaphysical entities.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, she is instead hit by flying debris and ends up paralyzed from the neck down.

There is no fault here. No one did anything "evil".

Accidents happen

I just don't see this at all. WE LEARN FROM THESE THINGS

HE who UNDERWENT every trial, OVERCAME every trial.

We are here to learn how to follow that example, so we can fill the measure of our creation and have JOY therein

I actually believe this stuff

 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Or we had already fallen.

How so?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Your wife dies in one. There’s an all powerful God that could have spared her (you prayed for help, didn’t you?). You tell me. 

Randomness and chaos are part of a fallen world, and people die in tsunamis or otherwise suffer "as God stood by and disregarded His children's prayers." The Lord atoned for this and so these unfortunates will learn the Gospel in the spirit world, have temple ordinances performed in their behalf, be resurrected, and receive a glory they are willing to receive.

Whether randomness and chaos are laws of nature, or the absence thereof, doesn’t matter in the atonement of Christ. That is how all-powerful, benevolent and all-knowing He is.

The amount of non-random wickedness and intentional destruction and chaos are a function of our choices, not God's, and so the range of wickedness and disorder is variable for the individual, community, society, and global levels. These things He "allowed" to occur -- and often He does intervene to rescue His children from harm, with or without prayers -- is swallowed up in the atonement wherein  He Himself suffered these things. All in our best interest.

Oddly perhaps, the answer to the problem of evil is faith. Perhaps the problem is with theodicy itself, the incorrect assumption God must be vindicated.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Meh.

I'm Pretty busy of late.

He just wants us to reach our full potential, and create our worlds, ie: getting our act together.

Fill the measure of our creation creation and have joy. And inherit all he has.

All that horrible stuff.  You got a kid that is wasting his life?

How do you give them a wake up call?

Keep coddling them?

No, you tell them they are wasting their lives!  And that you want to help them by following The Plan He has for them to fill their purpose in life instead of wallowing in negativity.

"Enemy"? 

Well at least it will get their attention!

And who knows how nuanced that translation is?  Not me anyway.

He just wants the best for us!

Meh?

So to get the best for my kid I should become his enemy, threaten him with eternal, Give him cancer or starve him or not step in when he is child and someone kidnap him, sexually abuse him and/or murder him.  And I should send one of my kids to live in abject poverty and misery and another to live in luxury. Just because I want the best for him.  And words have meaning and are used in certain way to convey a message.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How so?

Private theory. I suspect that (most) of those who entered this mortality in its fallen state had already fallen. I have only guesses as to how. I suspect the normal plan involves progressing in a Terrestrial environment until God tells you you are ready and then you eat the fruit to understand evil and then resist the devil (without falling from Terrestrial state unless you succumb). If some spirits had already fallen then the deliberate Fall of Adam and Eve was them voluntarily surrendering their progression for a time and risking everything in a desperate rescue mission to save fallen spirits who had no other way out. They are born here in the only world capable of taking them with an atonement to save them though I suspect the atonement may also offer a chance to those who fell other ways at other times in other worlds but that is just a vague guess.

It makes sense of a lot of evil. It makes it so that those who suffer in this world deserve to be here even if they don’t directly deserve the exact suffering they endure. It provides an explanation for those born in the Millenium being different (never fell) and makes Adam and Eve’s sacrifice real and explains the jiggery pokery of the Garden story. They basically hacked the normal method of progression in a desperate rescue mission. It also makes the plan much more salvation heavy. As far as we know fallen spirits are doomed to whatever Outer Darkness is. Coming to this world will up the post-death status of almost everyone who ever lived.

Then again I could be wrong. There are two scriptures that shoot the idea down to some extent and my patriarchal blessing suggests something different but I don’t trust the latter much anymore so who knows?

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't think the LDS view solves the problem of evil. It is an attempted answer, sure, and it can cover some instances, yes, but it cannot account satisfactorily for all instances of evil (bad things happening).

I disagree. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ provides the most compelling case against the problem(s) of evil.

It outright solves the logical problem of evil, something classical theologians have been unable to accomplish in the past two thousand years, and it provides a framework which accommodates the other problems far better than anything I have ever seen.

How is natural evil an argument against the existence of God if you made the free choice to be exposed to it prior to ever coming here in the first place?

You see, it doesn't matter whether or not this is the best possible world (and, in fact, we've got some hints in scripture that it expressly isn't). What matters is that we are able to explain how the fallen world we live in is not incompatible with a divine, loving God. The LDS paradigm accounts for this in a way that traditional Christianity has never been able to.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Whatever the reason for our enmity to God (sin?  living in a fallen world?  some combination of all of the above, et al., ad infinitum?), the helpful, hopeful part of the picture is that Mosiah 3:19 also tells us how to overcome that enmity:

• Yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit
• Put off the natural man
• Become a Saint through the Atonement of Christ
• Become as a child
  • Submissive
  • Meek
  • Humble
  • Patient
  • Full of love
  • Willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father

[Kenngo1969]

I should add that I don't think, necessarily, that it's all that helpful or healthy to try to figure out specific "causes" for all of the bad things that happen to us ("Sigh!  I guess I'm just not good enough!"  )  Frankly, if I had taken that route, I would have committed suicide ten or fifteen years ago.    

Some causes (and, as I say, from personal experience I have arrived at the view that it isn't helpful to try to assign specific causes to specific instances) are:

• Living in a fallen world
• Humanity's inhumanity to the rest of humanity
• "Hap crappening"
• Opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11)

[Kenngo1969]

And here's what I said to Teancum on the other thread, just for continuity's sake:

Quote

Others' mileage may vary (and I understand that, certainly, yours will) but I don't think God "created" the natural man so much as He endowed His creation with the capacity to choose: Whatever the degree of favorability or  of extremity of the respective circumstances in which we find ourselves, still, we have the capacity to choose how to respond to those circumstances.  And, whether here, hereafter, or both, the station in which we find ourselves will be influenced greatly by the choices we make.  See 2 Nephi 2:11, 27.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Kenngo1969