The problem of evil case study: genocide [Trigger warning, if you need it]

[MrShorty]

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

Quote

If there is a God, and that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world? A loving parent understands that a certain amount of pain and struggle is necessary for growth, but they still hate to see their children suffer needlessly. If I, as an imperfect father, saw one of my children inflicting serious harm on another—let alone trying to murder them—I would immediately intervene. No one would think I was a good parent if I said, “Let’s see what lessons can be learned from Child 1 hacking at Child 2 with a machete.” Gods can only be truly worthy of worship if they are morally and ethically superior to the best human you can possibly imagine. So if humans go to heroic lengths to stop needless suffering, why doesn’t God?

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

Quote

It rang hollow. What loving parent would allow—let alone stand by and watch—one child kill another? It seems even worse to do so simply to compile evidence about that child’s murderous disposition to be presented in a future court of law. Wouldn’t the loving parent intervene, not just for the sake of the victim but also so that the would-be perpetrator is prevented from committing such a morally ruinous act? It’s a fine line that parents walk, protecting their children versus allowing them to have hard experiences that promote growth. But responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe.

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

Quote

To affirm the resurrection is not to solve the problem of evil. It does not explain why God’s power seems so arbitrarily displayed in this life. Those who witnessed Jesus’s resurrected body were never provided rational explanations for his—or their—suffering. They were not offered understanding. Instead, they were given a witness. In the end, those who gazed on his body, who put their hands in his wounds, did not acquire understanding. Witness was enough. Good Friday only became “good” after Easter Sunday. To gaze uncompromisingly at Friday and still believe in Sunday is perhaps the greatest act of faith

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Quote

In Rwanda I sought understanding and gained in its place a witness. The God of Friday wants me to look. When I stare at his broken, bloodied body—in Jerusalem or Nyamata—I am convicted that this is not the world I want. I will tend to his wounds and accompany him to his grave. And then I will wait and watch and work. I will witness of the hope and rebirth that comes on Sunday. Not just that one Sunday so long ago, but every Sunday since and hereafter. Sunday neither erases nor explains Friday. What Sunday offers instead is hope that new life is possible and real.

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

[MrShorty]

Link to Wayfare's essay (it might be behind a subscription wall): https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda

Link to podcast episode: https://faithmatters.org/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda-a-conversation-with-patrick-mason/

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

Quote

It rang hollow.

Yeah, does for me too. Especially since Alma and Amulek are saved a short time later. Why were they irreplaceable and not those who perished?

I think that was Alma’s best guess why the Spirit stopped him. 

Edited September 2 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

The only place I've been able to come to is that God is not all powerful, at least not how we usually define that.  We know that is true, but just struggle to be ok with that in those terms. 

Using church doctrine we know that we have to come to earth to learn. We have to gain bodies. We have to choose right to live with him.  We have to repent to live with him. But...if God is all powerful he could have us learn without coming here.  If God is all powerful he could make it ok to live without bodies.  He could have us live with him without choosing right or without repenting.  But somehow he doesn't have the power to make us learn, to choose to be righteous, to repent.  Therefore he can't actually be all powerfull.  

So if he can't make us repent isn't it possible he can't stop us from killing? If he can't make us learn, isn't it possible he can't make us stop bullying? 

Maybe he is the God who weeps because he can't stop us from hurting each other. This doesn't make him a weak God. It makes him a God strong enough to bear some of the burdens of things he cannot stop.

Maybe him being all powerful has nothing, or little, to do with how he can use his Godly muscles. Maybe being all powerful has everything to do with the love he has for all of us, whatever righteous or evil state we are in.

 

[MrShorty]

@Rain Blake Ostler (an LDS thinker whose writings I occasionally encounter) has a piece out there somewhere that makes the same argument -- that a possibly important aspect of LDS theodicy is that God is not truly all powerful in the ways that traditional Christian and religious thought assumes.

I think there might be something in that, however, I also see a "slippery slope" kind of problem. If God is not as powerful as we've been led to believe, such that He is not powerful enough to prevent some/most evil, then is He worthy of worship? Perhaps at some level this is analogous to our own children becoming "disillusioned" when they get old enough to realize that mom and dad aren't as wonderful and amazing and all knowing and all powerful as their infant/toddler selves believed. Perhaps this is part of a process of growing into more of a "peer-peer" relationship with God than the parent-child relationship that we've been operating under.

I guess I just think that something fundamental might change about our understanding of the nature of God if we truly begin to believe that God is just as limited of a being as we are, only a little bit less limited than we are. It might have some explicative power, but I don't know if I will find it more comforting.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Mason writes:

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I really see that as God’s problem to solve.

I have said before that if God came into pretty much any family court in the USA and testified of what he has not done for his children his parental rights would be revoked very quickly due to gross negligence.

The problem with the “suffering teaches” angle is that it often doesn’t. A lifetime of ease can corrupt but a lifetime of cruelty and suffering often (there are exceptions) leads to a broken human.

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Rain Blake Ostler (an LDS thinker whose writings I occasionally encounter) has a piece out there somewhere that makes the same argument -- that a possibly important aspect of LDS theodicy is that God is not truly all powerful in the ways that traditional Christian and religious thought assumes.

I think there might be something in that, however, I also see a "slippery slope" kind of problem. If God is not as powerful as we've been led to believe, such that He is not powerful enough to prevent some/most evil, then is He worthy of worship? Perhaps at some level this is analogous to our own children becoming "disillusioned" when they get old enough to realize that mom and dad aren't as wonderful and amazing and all knowing and all powerful as their infant/toddler selves believed. Perhaps this is part of a process of growing into more of a "peer-peer" relationship with God than the parent-child relationship that we've been operating under.

I guess I just think that something fundamental might change about our understanding of the nature of God if we truly begin to believe that God is just as limited of a being as we are, only a little bit less limited than we are. It might have some explicative power, but I don't know if I will find it more comforting.

I don't see him as just a little less limited. In the doctrine he did create worlds, universes etc. Clearly it's not a small amount of power.

If the idea doesn't work for you I'm ok with that.  It's the only way I'm able to find peace.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

such that He is not powerful enough to prevent some/most evil, then is He worthy of worship?

Shouldn’t it be the end result that matters?  If he is willing to sacrifice all that he has and is for us to be able to join him in glory, I think he is worthy of worship. 

[blackstrap]

Imagine if God were to intervene to prevent every possible evil in the world. We would end up in individual bubbles protected from all interactions. I think God does intervene but very minimally and most  subtly. Then again , maybe we just think we are here a la The Matrix. 🙄

 

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@Rain Blake Ostler (an LDS thinker whose writings I occasionally encounter) has a piece out there somewhere that makes the same argument -- that a possibly important aspect of LDS theodicy is that God is not truly all powerful in the ways that traditional Christian and religious thought assumes.

I think there might be something in that, however, I also see a "slippery slope" kind of problem. If God is not as powerful as we've been led to believe, such that He is not powerful enough to prevent some/most evil, then is He worthy of worship?

Going back to this.  I've had 2 experiences with God's love that I cannot begin to describe. With the second one I was let know very clearly this was just a small portion of his love. I think people may very much underestimate his love because they do not have the power to understand it - I certainly don't.  So yes, I think this would still make him worthy of our worship.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps at some level this is analogous to our own children becoming "disillusioned" when they get old enough to realize that mom and dad aren't as wonderful and amazing and all knowing and all powerful as their infant/toddler selves believed. Perhaps this is part of a process of growing into more of a "peer-peer" relationship with God than the parent-child relationship that we've been operating under.

I guess I just think that something fundamental might change about our understanding of the nature of God if we truly begin to believe that God is just as limited of a being as we are, only a little bit less limited than we are. It might have some explicative power, but I don't know if I will find it more comforting.

 

Edited September 2 by Rain

[Calm]

8 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Imagine if God were to intervene to prevent every possible evil in the world. We would end up in individual bubbles protected from all interactions. I think God does intervene but very minimally and most  subtly. Then again , maybe we just think we are here a la The Matrix. 🙄

 

 

It isn’t hard to understand why he doesn’t intervene in quite a lot of stuff. But the extreme stuff (think babies being tortured), I can understand why some wonder. 
 

To others…how would you imagine him intervening?  Little nudges here and there so no one tempted to molest children ever has the opportunity to do so?  Couldn’t be obvious because then it wouldn’t take faith to believe.  I have thought about this some.  It seems possible sometimes and others not so much without altering who we as individuals are.  

There are also natural disasters.  If he had always take the worst edge off somehow, quieted down volcanoes and storms for example, would we know the difference?  Wouldn’t we just assume that is the way the world works?

I wonder if he can’t intervene because he has to keep a certain distance or his presence becomes so overpowering that it rewrites our own emotions and desires. I have long believed we came to earth to get a chance to live and make our own choices away from the  naturally highly influential presence of our heavenly parents.  As someone who was talked into changing my major into one I didn’t like because I thought my dad knew better than I did even though I had long resisted doing things his way, I can’t imagine how we could think the least independently in God’s presence, especially if there was some level of oneness that we tapped into premortality. 

And maybe if he is nudging us here and there without our permission, he could change our brain structure or the spiritual aspect of it.  I have read quite a few scifi stories where someone is a telepath altering others’ minds or memories for their good. But it never turns out good and people get really pissed off. In some ways that is what we ask God to do for us, but my guess is we feel very differently when we invite him to do so versus him doing it against our will. 

Edited September 2 by Calm

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Shouldn’t it be the end result that matters?  If he is willing to sacrifice all that he has and is for us to be able to join him in glory, I think he is worthy of worship. 

That would make him worthy of respect. Worship? Absolute trust? That requires more than good intentions.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That requires more than good intentions.

But if we believe scripture he has done much more than good intentions, he has sacrificed (especially if we assume the Father was like the Son in his mortal life).

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

The only place I've been able to come to is that God is not all powerful, at least not how we usually define that.  We know that is true, but just struggle to be ok with that in those terms. 

Using church doctrine we know that we have to come to earth to learn. We have to gain bodies. We have to choose right to live with him.  We have to repent to live with him. But...if God is all powerful he could have us learn without coming here.  If God is all powerful he could make it ok to live without bodies.  He could have us live with him without choosing right or without repenting.  But somehow he doesn't have the power to make us learn, to choose to be righteous, to repent.  Therefore he can't actually be all powerfull.  

So if he can't make us repent isn't it possible he can't stop us from killing? If he can't make us learn, isn't it possible he can't make us stop bullying? 

Maybe he is the God who weeps because he can't stop us from hurting each other. This doesn't make him a weak God. It makes him a God strong enough to bear some of the burdens of things he cannot stop.

Maybe him being all powerful has nothing, or little, to do with how he can use his Godly muscles. Maybe being all powerful has everything to do with the love he has for all of us, whatever righteous or evil state we are in.

 

There is a difference between being all-powerful and eternal Law. Law is law, even our Father cannot go against eternal law. 

Eternal law says we must receive a body to grow and progress. Eternal law says we must place our faith in an infinite Savior and repent to be forgiven and progress. Eternal law says agency is vital to eternal life. So, no, God couldn't make it "ok to live without bodies" and He can't make us be nice to each other.

Does that make God not all-powerful? No, that makes Him God- because if He didn't adhere to eternal law, He would cease to be God, and if He ceased to be God we would cease to exist.

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There is a difference between being all-powerful and eternal Law. Law is law, even our Father cannot go against eternal law. 

Eternal law says we must receive a body to grow and progress. Eternal law says we must place our faith in an infinite Savior and repent to be forgiven and progress. Eternal law says agency is vital to eternal life. So, no, God couldn't make it "ok to live without bodies" and He can't make us be nice to each other.

Does that make God not all-powerful? No, that makes Him God- because if He didn't adhere to eternal law, He would cease to be God, and if He ceased to be God we would cease to exist.

I don't think you understand what my replies above were.  I was only sharing what works for me because an all powerful God, with the great love I have felt from him, who sees the cries of his children getting brutally raped, tortured and killed and does nothing doesn't work for me.  It is  something so painful to my core. There is something in the concept that doesn't work for MrShorty as well so I was sharing my view as a possible way to help him. The way I see it didn't work for him so I can let it be and know he needs to find what will. It is afterall a topic that is terribly hard on hearts so what works ultimately has to touch individual hearts.

If it can work with your beliefs I am ok with that. It's just not a debating matter for me. 

Edited September 2 by Rain

[california boy]

The question I have is, if a person stood by and did nothing while watching someone murder and torture a million people when they could have stopped it, would that qualify them for the Celestial Kingdom? While a person who lives their life, always easing the burden of his fellow men and does everything to bring peace and happiness towards others, but is gay and lives his life with someone he loves and shares his life with is barred and not qualified to enter the Celestial Kingdom.  Does the first scenario qualify him for Celestial glory more than the second?  Is allowing evil a better qualifier than love? 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

even our Father cannot go against eternal law. 

“Will not” may be more appropriate if one believes he has the option and just will always refuse to take it. 

Edited September 2 by Calm

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

The question I have is, if a person stood by and did nothing while watching someone murder and torture a million people when they could have stopped it, would that qualify them for the Celestial Kingdom?

That would depend on why imo. I think the issue is whether one is willing to accept that perhaps there is something that would change the perception of the situation if known.

Possibilities that I have speculated about…

1) Somehow the self of those who suffer beyond the ability to learn from it are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually protected from being harmed by the experience, such as it’s an illusion and no one is actually suffering. Problem with that one is people survive torture, etc and can share how they felt the pain.

2) Our years of mortality are so short and limited in actual depth even the most horrific experience amounts to a stubbed toe for our eternal self that is actually experiencing life (our minds appear to be independent beings, but what if our minds are actually only part of a greater mind, not a hive mind, more like how the hemispheres of our brain function on their own as well as interacting with each other so our reality is much more than just a logic exercise or artistic experience, but a blending).  If an individual cell can feel pain, it seems it would often be quite extreme as cells get destroyed all the time and yet in our brain that cell’s pain makes little impact on its own.  Most probably feel that doesn’t work because they see our minds that suffer in this world as quite sentient in ways that greatly exceed individual cells or groups of cells and therefore it would still be wrong to allow perception of suffering for any part of a global mind that experiences reality seemingly on its own. 
 

I have thought of more, but need to take a break. 

[CV75]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

I think the problem of evil is in the question: “If there is a God…” God cannot be understood in context when only evil is a given. One has to first decide for themselves whether there is or is not a God, and then both He and evil are understood in context. I find the solution to evil is in the question, “Since there is a God…” Then, as you point out, the problem becomes the decision to believe in God given the presence of evil, whether that be in the form of perplexing/unjust/merciless life events and circumstances or a devil doing bad things to us.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

The question I have is, if a person stood by and did nothing while watching someone murder and torture a million people when they could have stopped it, would that qualify them for the Celestial Kingdom? While a person who lives their life, always easing the burden of his fellow men and does everything to bring peace and happiness towards others, but is gay and lives his life with someone he loves and shares his life with is barred and not qualified to enter the Celestial Kingdom.  Does the first scenario qualify him for Celestial glory more than the second?  Is allowing evil a better qualifier than love? 

Yes, because the regard and dignity God extends to us is found in our unimpeded agency, not in His unconditional love for us. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

t is gay and lives his life with someone he loves and shares his life with is barred and not qualified to enter the Celestial Kingdom

If they do not change, sure, this is true according to our current understanding of LDS doctrine of the gospel.

But no one qualifies for the CK as far as I can tell at the time of death because no one has yet been fully purified (made sinless) and sanctified (made fully holy by Christ).

We all must change.  I think you are assuming by not giving up homosexual feelings, someone will be barred, but my guess is we will be giving up heterosexual feelings as well and the attraction we will feel for our eternal partners will be something quite different and much more fulfilling. The capability to be one in thought will have a major impact as well as having perfect communication, no sinfulness meaning no selfishness and especially the ability to thoroughly know oneself…that type of relationship is beyond our comprehension imo.  And I don’t think we should assume such abilities mean eternal relationships for those involved in opposite sex marriages in mortality and cutting off any same sex relationship.   I am not sure we should assume anything except it will be heaven as that has been promised.

Edited September 2 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then, as you point out, the problem becomes the decision to believe in God given the presence of evil, whether that be in the form of perplexing/unjust/merciless life events and circumstances or a devil doing bad things to us.

But what questions does this answer?

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

But what questions does this answer?

"What, and where, is the solution to the undermining of our ability believe in God in the face of evil?" Answer: The "what" is our choice to believe, and the "where" is in us.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

Interesting post and thanks for sharing.  Also the suffering the just happens through disease and sickness and nature should also be considered. For me, I do not find the various theodicies compelling and at least currently feel this topic speaks loudly against there actually being a theistic type god. 

[Duncan]

I know a guy, member, he grew up in a fairly wealthy family, he served a mission to Utah, paid for of course. He went to uni-paid for again. He married a nurse( she has been through stuff) she is basically the breadwinner of the family, she earns $$$ but he got a job through his dad and then he was the bishop and then he just got offered a job working in the temple as the recorder. I look at him and his life and compare it to a million others, his life is so insulated and every door has been opened to him and yet other people it has been the exact, polar opposite. They appear to be like a hotdog in a hurricane

Edited September 2 by Duncan