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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't see those as interference.

Why not if it changes the choices a person has available?

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Another issue….Isn’t a murderer interfering with the agency of the person they murder?  Why is the murderer’s agency more valued than the victim’s?

Evil is the interference with agency. God holds both the murderer’s and victim’s agency in regard and has not interfered with either, which not only allows evil to occur but ensures the greater good to prevail (case study, Alma 14).

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Evil is the interference with agency. God holds both the murderer’s and victim’s agency in regard and has not interfered with either, which not only allows evil to occur but ensures the greater good to prevail (case study, Alma 14).

Yeah, that is a very unsatisfactory answer for me…that God regards agency so highly he will stand by and do nothing while someone’s agency is destroyed.

Unless you have something more to add on why he does this?

I do think agency is key, but I wonder if you value agency as a principle or characteristic in and of itself or for what it results in.  For me it’s the latter, a means to an end…agency is necessary for us to figure out who we are as individuals and as God’s family, so I see mortality as intended maximize it as a whole for all of mankind as opposed for each individual (and I haven’t yet figured out how allow a murderer to destroy agency might do that).

Edited September 2, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why not if it changes the choices a person has available?

The dictum is, "Let God prevail," not "Let God interfere."

Blessings and spiritual promptings do not change the choices one has available; they are manifestations of a relationship. The offering of more choices does not change the  choices a person makes, it just gives them more choices. Eden had more choices available in that estate than in the premortal spirit estate, and the fallen estate has more choices than in Eden. Expansion is the opposite of interference. And God honored the the choice to expand or not in each estate, so it cannot be said that expansion is a form of interference any more than our choice to not expand in each estate is interference from God.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

😇 Sorry…I’m just here to read, but Duncan!  What in the world is a hotdog in a hurricane???!

You've never heard that before??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, that is a very unsatisfactory answer for me…that God regards agency so highly he will stand by and do nothing while someone’s agency is destroyed.

Unless you have something more to add on why he does this?

I do think agency is key, but I wonder if you value agency as a principle or characteristic in and of itself or for what it results in.  For me it’s the latter, a means to an end…agency is necessary for us to figure out who we are as individuals and as God’s family, so I see mortality as intended maximize it as a whole for all of mankind as opposed for each individual (and I haven’t yet figured out how allow a murderer to destroy agency might do that).

Agency and freedom are two different things. Agency is the ability to choose and it is untouchable. Freedom is often restricted by the choices of others and ourselves.

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, that is a very unsatisfactory answer for me…that God regards agency so highly he will stand by and do nothing while someone’s agency is destroyed.

Unless you have something more to add on why he does this?

I do think agency is key, but I wonder if you value agency as a principle or characteristic in and of itself or for what it results in.  For me it’s the latter, a means to an end…agency is necessary for us to figure out who we are as individuals and as God’s family, so I see mortality as intended maximize it as a whole for all of mankind as opposed for each individual (and I haven’t yet figured out how allow a murderer to destroy agency might do that).

God, as in the Father toward the Son, did just that in Gethsemane and on the cross (as well as Alma 14). I think we understand why He does things like that. I take agency to be an eternal attribute of God's children as well as a principle. From D&C 93: 30, 31:

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself [principle], as all intelligence [attribute] also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man [attribute], and here is the condemnation [or salvation -- both attributes that result from exercising the attribute in principle] of man...

If it is a means to an end, and it doesn't end for its possessor, then it is an eternal attribute of the possessor.

 

[Tacenda]

19 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. 🙄

 

 

I picture a God with angels that help alert Him, or maybe do the work themselves. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agency and freedom are two different things. Agency is the ability to choose and it is untouchable. Freedom is often restricted by the choices of others and ourselves.

If someone is dead, they don’t have much agency in regards to mortality

[MrShorty]

@CV75 As I noted in the OP, Mason addresses the "free will" theodicy and explains (at least in part) why he finds it unsatisfying. See the part where he talks about how good parents keep the guns and knives out of the kids' reach, even while letting them choose how they will play. A good parent can respect agency, while also doing things to prevent real harm.

In addition to what Mason says about Alma 14, I also note that there are examples in scripture where God intervened to prevent some evil (usually to prevent one person from killing another). God intervened to protect Ammon or Aaron from a Lamanite who raised his sword to kill him. God intervened to prevent the Jews from killing Jesus before His time (see Luke 4, for one example).

I can agree that a free will theodicy has something to contribute to our discussion about the problem of evil. Ultimately, though, it doesn't satisfy. If nothing else, there are clear examples in scripture where God decided (or the eternal law above God allowed -- to address @ZealouslyStriving's variation) to override someone's choices for one reason or another. There seems to be a "capriciousness" (to use an inflammatory caricature) to how God invokes this free will theodicy that is disconcerting.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I have no doubt that Alma knew the Lord was taking their souls to be with him, but that is different than knowing why imo.

The part I think was likely his best guess (and I would say it was inspired but incomplete, so “guess” is not the best word) was God allowing the righteous to be horribly slaughtered so his judgments against the wicked for killing them would be just….as if they wouldn’t be just if the wicked desired to destroy and yet were prevented according to the teachings of Jesus.  If lusting in the heart (imo this means one would act on it if one could) is as bad as acting on lust and committing adultery, than surely murder and torture in one’s heart is as bad as acting out and intentionally murdering someone.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/5?lang=eng#p1

True all around, but murdering in one's heart and adultery in one's heart is not truly the same as murder and adultery, is it? If it were, then I would be guilty of one but not the other. I can easily repent of wanting to murder someone, if I don't do it, just so as I can easily repent of looking at woman not my wife and lusting after her. It is absolutely not easy to repent of doing either act in actual fact. 

Jesus's admonition to not do these things even in your thoughts is the way of peace and calm. As my mission president once told us, we cannot stop the birds from flying over us, but we can stop them from building a nest in our hair. 

For whatever reason, the Lord allows people to commit horrendous crimes, and in only very rare cases prevents it (or so it seems). The atheists say that this is the reason to believe there is no God. And they would be right if God put us here so we could have a nice time, no opposition, no conflict, and no sorrow. But nobody gets this. So there's either no God, or God's purpose isn't to make everything peachy keen. The scriptures say we're here for a test, not merely for a holiday. "What will you do today?" is the question each of us answers every day by our choices and our actions. And if God prevented the horrors then the test would fail. In my humble opinion.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75 As I noted in the OP, Mason addresses the "free will" theodicy and explains (at least in part) why he finds it unsatisfying. See the part where he talks about how good parents keep the guns and knives out of the kids' reach, even while letting them choose how they will play. A good parent can respect agency, while also doing things to prevent real harm.

In addition to what Mason says about Alma 14, I also note that there are examples in scripture where God intervened to prevent some evil (usually to prevent one person from killing another). God intervened to protect Ammon or Aaron from a Lamanite who raised his sword to kill him. God intervened to prevent the Jews from killing Jesus before His time (see Luke 4, for one example).

I can agree that a free will theodicy has something to contribute to our discussion about the problem of evil. Ultimately, though, it doesn't satisfy. If nothing else, there are clear examples in scripture where God decided (or the eternal law above God allowed -- to address @ZealouslyStriving's variation) to override someone's choices for one reason or another. There seems to be a "capriciousness" (to use an inflammatory caricature) to how God invokes this free will theodicy that is disconcerting.

(Good parenting) God is a Good Parent when He keeps the tree of life out of reach until the accountable have matured fully, regardless of the choices we make toward maturation during our probationary estate. He also has special regard for little children and others who are not accountable so that they also partake of the tree of life when they are ready.

(Alma 14) God’s intervention in this life is not interference with agency but is rather conditioned upon the preservation of agency in this probationary estate. He does not remove the probationary estate with its inherent opposition in all things. He preserves it without preventing or eliminating evil, which would require preventing or eliminating its opposite, good, as well.

(God’s capriciousness) This is a judgement call made with limited understanding and perception, which God certainly allows us to do: Moroni 7:12-19 explains that the way to judge (the Spirit and light of Christ) is given to everyone, and our choices are unimpeded by God.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

murdering in one's heart and adultery in one's heart is not truly the same as murder and adultery, is it?

So Jesus was wrong?

imo, it depends on how far you take it in your thoughts.  If you nurture the thoughts so much it changes you into the person who would commit adultery or murder if you could get away with it, I don’t see a difference spiritually speaking.

Is it easier to repent of sinful thoughts or sinful acts?  In some way acts might be easier because we have lived with the consequences. 

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

So Jesus was wrong?

Of course not. But did Jesus mean literally what he said about committing adultery in one's heart? I don't think he did, or else most men would be regaling their bishops every week about whom they lusted after the previous week, and nobody would be worthy of blessing the sacrament. A related question is what constitutes "lusting after"? My best interpretation for what Jesus said is that it should be our goal to keep our thoughts clear of sin, learning to let virtue garnish one's thoughts continuously. 

The steps of repentance require making amends for what one has done. If one has done nothing, then how can one make amends for it? I guess you could say that you can just skip that part and go on to the next, which is never do it again. What? Never think of it again? Try not thinking of elephants.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

imo, it depends on how far you take it in your thoughts.  If you nurture the thoughts so much it changes you into the person who would commit adultery or murder if you could get away with it, I don’t see a difference spiritually speaking.

Who is stronger, the man who refuses to give in to his lustful thoughts, despite opportunity, or the man who gives in?

I do see that if you nurture those thoughts it can change you into a person who could commit those crimes. That's the whole point of Jesus's advice to not do it. But I don't see the bad thoughts as equivalent to the bad acts. Even spiritually.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it easier to repent of sinful thoughts or sinful acts?  In some way acts might be easier because we have lived with the consequences. 

What if I go to the bank with the intent of robbing it, but decide not to do it as I enter the bank. Have I harmed anyone? No. But if I go there and do hold it up for, say, $10,000, I have harmed someone, and if I get caught I will pay for it, but so will the people whom I terrorized. Question: What is harder to repent of? Answer: Robbing the bank. You cannot repent of not having robbed the bank. 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I know this is often the point of many conversations around the problem of evil. I also know that I cannot control the discussion thread. For me, I'm inclined less towards a "does God exist?" kind of question and more inclined towards, "will I respond to the problem of evil with a desire to do what I can to alleviate and prevent evil?"

I think that can be a healthy approach.  For me it is just the evil land suffering exist. I think trying to do our part alleviate such things is a right path.

 

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I've said before that I find those theodicies that emphasize our call to bring goodness into the world as best we can more compelling. As Mason put it, will we look at the evils around us and determine that we are no longer content with the world we have and are willing to put forth the effort to change the world we have? As I said to @CV75, I'm not sure that the question of whether God exists or not is important in our decision to bring goodness into the world.

Well it should not be.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

the man who refuses to give in to his lustful thoughts, despite opportunity

I am talking about those who would commit, but lack opportunity.  You are putting conditions on the lusting I am not. Or rather I am putting the condition of proactiveness on the lusting….as in nurturing it and possibly to the point that all one needs is a perceived opportunity to do it.

I am not talking about those who have thoughts pop into their head, but don’t dwell on it.  Lusting in one’s heart is closer to doing porn without the pictures (one’s imagination is enough) and includes feelings of covetousness.

Quote

If one has done nothing, then how can one make amends for it?

You don’t think it alters a relationship and harms the loved one to actively choose to commit adultery in one’s heart? 

Edited September 3, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am talking about those who would commit, but lack opportunity.  

“The Thief who has no opportunity to steal, thinks he is an honest man."

― Anupam Kher

I think we could argue that the ability to choose evil is how the evil in us is revealed.  That revelation might also be essential in order for an evil person to be redeemed, because until a person recognizes what/who he is, there is no way for him to be anything different.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think that can be a healthy approach.  For me it is just the evil land suffering exist. I think trying to do our part alleviate such things is a right path.

 

Well it should not be.

As I’ve tried to point out, the question of whether God exists is important in our decision to bring goodness into the world when He is brought into the question in the first place, as in, “If God exists…” (the OP). It is nonsense to include Him in the calculus when one has already decided whether He exists or not, or can’t or won’t conclude whether He exists. But once He is acknowledged and brought into the equation, the question is (for that person), “Since God exists…” Matters of good parenting; differentiating between intervention, interference and influence; and existential stability are set forth in His interactions with humanity.

If you don't believe in Him or that He interacts with humanity, then the only ones allowing good and evil are us, and no one is asking, "If I exist, why do I allow evil things to happen?" That question gets glossed over and replaced with assertions such as, "I am doing all the good I can given that the evil I do isn't that bad."

Edited September 3, 2024 by CV75

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

If someone is dead, they don’t have much agency in regards to mortality

They still have agency as a spirit. If death takes away agency then even natural death is a violation of agency.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

“The Thief who has no opportunity to steal, thinks he is an honest man."

― Anupam Kher

I think we could argue that the ability to choose evil is how the evil in us is revealed.  That revelation might also be essential in order for an evil person to be redeemed, because until a person recognizes what/who he is, there is no way for him to be anything different.

Beautifully said and explained.  So insightful.  I have to bold it all because it is such a perfect description of what I see happening in this life, not only for evil people, but for all because it’s not only about evil, but about imperfections that can lead to evil.

This ties into my belief about why we had to experience mortality.  Mortality creates pressures that turns what might be seen as simple insufficiencies —easily compensated for in a premortal world that was generally perfect for us such as I see any existence where God’s presence is dominant—into cracks that if allowed to continue would over eternities at the very least impede growth and could even as they did with Lucifer grow to the point they break who we fundamentally are down into the least we can be.  God’s purpose with mortality imo is to help us grow into the most of what we can be by helping us recognize these weaknesses and making the choice whether to identify more with them or with God.  For this, we needed a life that allows our weaknesses a chance to dominate us at least for brief moments, longer if we are not aware of them as weaknesses and nurture them instead of trying to find a better way.

If we choose God, he will remake us without them, which will open us up to be able to continue to progress through eternities to come.  If we choose to stay as we are even with our weaknesses, we will eventually stagnate.

Edited September 3, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They still have agency as a spirit.

But are we not talking about why mortality is the way it is?  Why God doesn’t act in certain ways during mortality?
 

Plus if we had true agency during our preexistence, why is mortality required?
 

Quote

even natural death is a violation of agency.

But we accepted natural death, chose it when we chose mortality, did we not?

Edited September 3, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If death takes away agency then even natural death is a violation of agency.

Anything that is a consequence of a previous choice is not a violation of agency though.  It is the culmination of our agency.

But I think that Calm means that death removes our agency as it applies to mortality.  I don't think she's saying that it removes our agency completely or forever.

[manol]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

So Jesus was wrong?

imo, it depends on how far you take it in your thoughts.  If you nurture the thoughts so much it changes you into the person who would commit adultery or murder if you could get away with it, I don’t see a difference spiritually speaking.

Bingo.  When we tune our internal "radio" in to a negative "station", we consent to our minds indulging in and becoming aligned to that way of thinking.  We cannot think about something and not have it affect us.  The way of thinking that led to the Rwandan genocide started out as "othering", a practice which most of us find perfectly normal and acceptable and even desirable, religions do it all the time, people do it all the time.  Imo we have room for improvement, and need not wait for someone in a position of authority to give us permission. 

Whether or not something crosses the line of technicality into "sin" territory may not be the best barometer of whether something is acceptable in the presence of God.  We're not supposed to take our negative thoughts into the prayer circle and into the Celestial Room.  If the Kingdom of God is within us, why would negative thoughts be any more acceptable there?

 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Try not thinking of elephants.

Excellent point. One does not overcome negative thoughts by focusing on not thinking those thoughts.     

Imo, one overcomes negative thoughts by "tuning in" to a higher "radio station". 

Here's the blueprint:  "Look to me in every thought.  Doubt not.  Fear not."  It doesn't matter whether "doubt not" and "fear not" are justifiable to our logical minds.  We are to do them anyway, to the best of our ability in the moment, and our ability will increase.  (In other words, imo we are to align ourselves to the highest thoughts, the highest radio station, that we can in the moment, regardless of whether or not it makes sense.)

Those who partake of the Sacrament only witness unto God that they are actually doing one thing.  What is that one thing?  It is "that they do always remember him."  That's the radio station we're supposed to be tuned-in to.   It takes effort but is within our reach at least to some extent at any given moment. 

And whadda ya know... no more elephants! 

Okay admittedly it takes diligent attention and consistently re-directing one's thoughts in order to re-set one's "default" radio station, but ime it can be done in a matter of weeks.  And then re-tuning one's station when the elephants try tip-toeing into the room becomes much easier because those pathways have been strengthened by use.

*  *  *

As for the far weightier subject matter of this thread, at this time my response is "I don't know."  I haven't finished watching the video yet, nor read the essay, but it's unlikely I'll emerge with anything better.

Edited September 3, 2024 by manol

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Beautifully said and explained.  So insightful.  I have to bold it all because it is such a perfect description of what I see happening in this life, not only for evil people, but for all because it’s not only about evil, but about imperfections that can lead to evil.

This ties into my belief about why we had to experience mortality.  Mortality creates pressures that turns what might be seen as simple insufficiencies —easily compensated for in a premortal world that was generally perfect for us such as I see any existence where God’s presence is dominant—into cracks that if allowed to continue would over eternities at the very least impede growth and could even as they did with Lucifer grow to the point they break who we fundamentally are down into the least we can be.  God’s purpose with mortality imo is to help us grow into the most of what we can be by helping us recognize these weaknesses and making the choice whether to identify more with them or with God.  For this, we needed a life that allows our weaknesses a chance to dominate us at least for brief moments, longer if we are not aware of them as weaknesses and nurture them instead of trying to find a better way.

If we choose God, he will remake us without them, which will open us up to be able to continue to progress through eternities to come.  If we choose to stay as we are even with our weaknesses, we will eventually stagnate.

I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts in my head as well, and they are leading me to consider if one reason that evil is allowed to exist (I think there are probably a lot of different reasons) is that God actually does love all of us, even people who choose evil. 

In that way His justice would be another aspect of His mercy rather than the opposite side of it.  Maybe letting someone fall to their lowest, and meeting them there with justice, is the mechanism that will allow them to change to be something a little better, when no other way for them to change is possible?

I'm not sure but it's interesting to think about. 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

But are we not talking about why mortality is the way it is?  Why God doesn’t act in certain ways during mortality?
 

Plus if we had true agency during our preexistence, why is mortality required?
 

But we accepted natural death, chose it when we chose mortality, did we not?

I think moral agency is a subset of agency, which is a subset of freedom (according to the cascade of references here: Agency). Spirits chose to rebel pre-mortally, Adam and Eve chose to transgress as Edenites, and we choose between good and evil in mortality. We then have expanded freedom in the resurrected estate, with attendant rights and privileges commensurate with the glory with which we are quickened. Each stage represents an advancing sphere that God opens up to us as we pass from one probationary estate to the next, and then into the final kingdom. In this way He gives us agency, by expanding the opportunities and the attendant opposition. The existence of limitations in each estate represents a layer of protection until we can advance to the next and at last to our final estate.