The Problem of Evil and Mormonism
Oct 30th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 27 Comments |
Mormons and evangelicals are or aren’t both Christians. We were wondering about that this morning, right? And whether the two groups share the same values and doctrines.
And before that, I said the Problem of Evil was one of the Philosophical Issues surrounding Creationism.
And I happen to have something to say about Mormonism and the Problem of Evil. So why not take the opportunity? Right?
Mormonism has an answer to the Problem of Evil, from what I can tell. II Nephi 2.22-25:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remain in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. [23] And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no miser;doing no good, for they knew no sin. [24] But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. [25] Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
The Book of Mormon’s answer to the Problem of Evil? You can’t have good without it.
The Bible’s answer? God made Behemoth (see Job 40). In other words: the Bible gives no answer.
And that is one reason why I prefer the latter to the former. It seems to me that if God had easy answers to offer, God would have let people know the answer to the Problem of Evil thousands of years ago.
The fact is, there is no answer to the Problem of Evil. You can’t talk about what reason God would have for doing anything. “Having a reason” is a temporal concept (first you have a reason, then you act), which doesn’t have any sense when applied to a God who created time.
“God’s reason for allowing evil is x” makes as much sense as “Democracy’s geometric shape is y.”
______________________
(Updated to get rid of “fakery” talk altogether, as the real issue is which of the two books of Scripture conforms most to my understanding of the answer to the Problem of Evil)
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
Well, you can use it “analogically” (see St. Thomas’ on analogical uses of words when talking about God), but that doesn’t get you anywhere.
If we are to accept that God’s reasoning is beyond our grasp then:-
1. Christ did an awful lot of senseless explaining.
2. The Apostles did an awful lot of senseless explaining.
3. Most of the Bible would be meaningless, and he would have just stuck to the instructions, as details would be beyond us.
Christ demonstrated a very understandable God to those who listen to the Spirit and use their hearts. It is those who use their heads without their hearts and the Spirit that come out with confusion.
As a “Mormon” I can assure you that God is understandable provided you open to him and the Saviour.
I believe that there is a God and God is not us.
I take the wisdom of St. Paul
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.
DougT, I agree the truth proclamation that God’s reasoning is beyond our grasp in what he chooses not to explain and because of the scope of our finite minds, but I don’t believe in your #1, #2, or #3.
DougT–
I’d be interested to see your argument that having a reason is not a temporal concept and can therefore be applied to an extra-temporal God (or your argument that God is not extra-temporal).
The very fact that Christ is the perfect revelation of God would seem to prove my point. Christ is not an explanation of reasons but a person.
Give me some examples of where Christ and the Apostles talk about God’s reasons for something, and we can have some fun seeing if I can explain them away. *grin*
I’m not convinced that being able to understand God requires us to know God’s reasons for something. Maybe it does and it’s just too early in the morning for me to see it, though.
Rich–
Indeed.
Todd–
The whole “My thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isaiah 55) is a good example of the best that analogical language can get us. I do think, however, that we can talk about what God accomplishes through God’s actions, even though we can’t talk with much sense about what God’s reasons for God’s actions were.
Thanks to all for the input!
Besides obvious discrepancies with the Bible (and that passage from the book of Mormon) like the cultural mandate, the Mormon theodicy is interesting but is almost polar opposite of a Christian theodicy in that at the end of that verse the purpose of it all was about man’s joy and fulfilment whereas God’s purpose was not ultimately man’s joy and happiness but His own (see Jonathan Edwards – A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World)
Chuck–
There’s just one Christian theodicy? (he said, suspiciously) :-)
I’m going to have to read this Jonathan Edwards guy (he said, as if he didn’t know who he was), because I claim that “the End for Which God Created the World” is a nonsensical phrase.
right right….there are many and this is one.
How would you paraphrase the end for which God created the world?
…The reasons God created the world?
Or rather
The reason that God created the world.
Neither. I don’t think you can talk about God’s reasons for doing anything without using the word “reason” analogically. And if we’re using the word “reason” analogically, I’m not sure what it means.
I would rephrase all claims like “x is the reason God did y” as “God accomplished z by doing y” (where “z” may or may not be “x” depending on the sentence in question).
In other words, I prefer the wording of Romans 5:8 to John 3:16, though I think they essentially say the same thing.
If they are essentially saying the same thing then what is the point. (this is why I am glad I am not in philosophy)
But I did find it interesting that you have a problem with the way one verse talks about God and not a problem with another. Is it a problem then with the translation? Or is it a problem with the authorship (ability of the author to write correctly?)
First question–
They’re saying the same thing in the way that “Dude, you’re an animal!” and “My dear fellow, you played splendidly today” are essentially saying the same thing. But if you don’t realize that the former should be understood in terms of the latter, you might think the former was making a claim about a person’s status as a human being.
Same thing goes for other synonymous statements like “Get out!,” “No way!,” “You’re kidding!” and “I am extremely surprised [and perhaps even happy] about what you’re telling me!” If you don’t read the first three in terms of of the fourth, you’ll think the person is saying something they aren’t.
Second question–
It’s a problem with the audience and context. In John 3:16, evidently, Jesus didn’t think it was important to get into God’s ontological status with regard to time, and felt it was fine to use the word “for” (even though the implication that God had a reason, in the same way that we have reasons, for doing something would have to be clarified as analogical in other contexts).
In Romans, Paul is speaking to a different audience and is going deeper into doctrinal obscurities, so he speaks more precisely.
How’s that for a hypothesis? :-)
I didn’t agree with my #1, #2, or #3 either Todd. My point was quite the opposite.
Micah Tillman
Christ certainly is a person. But a person with reasons. And he presented that the Father equally has reasons and is as understandable as anything else in nature.
“If any of you has a son that asks for bread do you give him a stone? Or if he asks for fish do you give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him.” (written from memory, so pardon any errors – though no errors in meaning).
Here Christ has likened God to men. He is saying that the same way a father would act is the same way that God would act. He is affirming that God thinks just like us in our good thoughts.
Isaiah’s point that God’s thinking is so far beyond ours should be understood as being relative not absolute.
Christ presented to his Apostles that watching him was like watching the Father. The acts of Christ are clearly demonstrated. His heart went out with compassion upon seeing different difficulties people were in. He responded with love. Is this beyond our comprehension, or is it merely beyond the comprehension of the natural man (which Christ helps us to defeat and become born again – natural man dead)?
Christ taught his Apostles and answered all their questions (no – “oh you aren’t meant to understand that” routine).
In regard all this being for God’s own good will and pleasure. Christ stated, “my father doth hitherto work, and I work.” A clear statement that both are actually at work, not pursuing some pleasure. So what was Christ working at? He was working at us obtaining eternal happiness. What is therefore God working at (as seeing what Christ is doing is a reflection of the Father)? Our good will and pleasure.
Christ said, “I came to serve, not to be served.” Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are our loving servants. But they will kick us in the rear if it gets us on the ball and helps us find that happiness. So don’t mess with them.
“God causes the sun to shine on the evil and on the good.”
I could go on and on but hopefully that has answered your questions.
Doug–
Thanks! I appreciate the examples. Unfortunately they don’t answer my questions. But this is fun, so I’ll write a bit on why I’m not convinced.
First, you didn’t answer my question about how having a reason is not a temporal concept. Until you answer that, it’s hard for me to take any of your examples in the way you want me to. It would be like asking someone to take a bunch of examples in which Democracy is referred to as having a shape without first explaining to them how it is not senseless to say Democracy has a shape.
I can accept that Christ would have reasons, as He is human and therefore temporal. I actually think this is point very much worth pondering. Thanks!
The first sentence is undoubtedly correct. The second sentence, however, is unclear to me. Isn’t the point that God would act even better than a father, not in the same way as a father? Also, I see no explanation of God’s actions here in terms of God’s having reasons for God’s actions. I see Jesus helping us to understand what God is like, though, so we agree that God is understandable in many ways.
This is a very intriguing claim. I’d love to see your argument for it.
On your Christ’s interactions with the Apostles examples:
God has always answered questions and acted. Neither of those requires talk of “God’s having reasons” does it?
And my claim that “talk of God’s having reasons is senseless” is not an “‘oh you aren’t meant to understand that’ routine,” so don’t get me wrong. My claim is that logically we can understand why we can’t understand why God would allow evil. God isn’t hiding anything from us by not telling us. There is nothing to tell.
That third sentence needs a lot of argumentation. You can talk about God’s work, and what God accomplishes through God’s work. But neither of those entails that God is pursuing anything. And God’s pursuing something through God’s work does not entail that what is being pursued is the reason for God’s work.
There’s nothing in the “God causes the sun to shine” verse about God’s reasons. In fact it leads to more questions regarding God’s reasons than answers.
Thanks Doug!
Micah
Your second paragraph really gets to the point of some of my reasons for not being content in Protestantism when I got to 11 and started asking serious questions of ministers. Your second last paragraph also reflects this.
Your points are good, and it is obvious you are a thinker rather than filling the pews.
I have very limited internet access at present and so this conversation is going to go into the ancient before we could conclude. But I am interested in continuing. You have my email address but I don’t have yours. If you would email me with your address we could continue on. If not I’ll reply here next week, hopefully.
Your question took some time to consider because you are asking for a scripturally demonstrated philosophical answer. That gets a bit tough when texts are also interpretable.
The difficulty I find in discussing God with Protestants is where it comes down to this same issue that you are mentioning – does God need to make sense? And that gets down to the question of just how omnitpotent is God? If God is subject to reason then God is subject to law, and therefore he isn’t omnipotent in every sense of the word. For a Protestant to question God’s omnipotence is sacrilage. But Scipture presents God’s omnipotence as being also relative. We can interpret Scripture and claim it to be speaking figuratively. But what does Scripture really say – without us changing its meaning?
We are left with questions such as why does Christ stand at the door and knock rather than just breaking the door down with his omnipotence? Of course one could answer that God wants us to let him in volentarily. And that is true. But does that answer the question or just present additional information? That could only be answered as opinion.
Then there is the question of why Christ needed to come to atone for sins to save us? After all that is totally illogical: The Father does us a favour by sending his son to suffer so he can forgive us! If he is totally omnipotent in all ways there was no need for a saviour, as God could just forgive us without any suffering.
God claims that he CAN’T lie. How can that be if he has no rules?
And is God unchangeable? If he has no laws he may change.
If he has no rules we can’t trust anything he says.
God demanded that Israel not even go out to just gather manna on the sabbath day. Yet Christ defended his disciples for going out and gathering corn on the sabbath day (Matt 12). Christ gave examples from their scriptures of people breaking God’s law and being justified. So if they were breaking God’s laws given to Moses, by what law are they justified? God didn’t give optional laws. Uzzah put his hand up to stop the ark from falling over and God struck him down for breaking the law not to touch it.
So why is it that Uzzah was in the wrong for breaking the law with good reason but King David and Christ’s disciples were blameless?
Christ goes on in Matt 12:7 to state, “But if you had known what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
What does this mean? It is referring to the flexability of law due to circumstance. But if there is flexability due to circumstance then there must be a higher law not stated in the law itself. If God is without reason then how can there be any law but that which he states? His stated law would be the ultimate and only law.
“Mormonism” would present that there are eternal laws, and that evil is to be in opposition to those laws that create harmony. That God is God because he is in full harmony with those laws. Therefore God has reason and makes sense. Harmony with God’s laws (which are eternal laws) brings joy to our hearts. We can have the ground produce more food, other nations will treat us better, and all the other things God promises us if we get in harmony with nature.
The Doctrine and Covenants presents that at the age of 8 a person has come to the age where they can discern good from evil and needs repentance and baptism. I well remember my experiences of 7-years-old (never having had contact or even heard of the church). I would lie to my mother and she believed me at times – nothing new, that had happened for years as a child (typical kid stuff). But at 7 I suddenly had this rotten feeling when my mother believed me. I had rotten feelings about a lot of things. It is only been of recent years that I put two and two together on that situation. What is this conscience that I suddenly achieved at this age? And why did it see lying as evil? Was this magic from God? Not so. I agree with your quote of Lehi in 2 Nephi. Eternal law is consistent (eternal). Oppose it and suffer. If you truly open up and repent Christ can suffer the consequences on your behalf – an eternal law, to appease your conscience. Heavy stuff?
God not only has answers, but they actually make sense and fit with reality.
In regard the rest
“The second sentence, however, is unclear to me. Isn’t the point that God would act even better than a father, not in the same way as a father?”
Not the way I read it. He says how much MORE the father would do the right thing, but isn’t denying that they, as fathers, would do also. He is saying that as they would do the right thing for their sons so God would do the right thing as our Father. Not only that but he is pointing to a relationship between the two. Thus presenting that God is very understandable, as you have agreed with.
In regard Isaiah’s point of God’s thoughts and ways being beyond ours. Basically this fits in with that stated about the similarities of ways of God and fathers. God has knowledge that is far beyond our ability to even know what he is talking about let alone agree with. But, on the other hand, there are things that we can understand. As the father bit. Therefore it is relative to the question. If we can think of the question we can eventually understand the answer.
“God has always answered questions and acted. Neither of those requires talk of “God’s having reasons” does it?”
Genesis chapter 18 contains the interesting story of the Lord coming to Abraham with two men he sent to Lot in Sodom. Abraham asks the Lord whether he will destroy the righteous with the wicked. Abraham questions, “..Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (verse 25).
This indicates to me that 1. Abraham’s perception of God was that he would do what was right – that he was subject to laws. And 2. God not correcting this perception indicates God’s acceptance of this point also. God goes on to agree with Abraham’s perception by eventually stating that he would save it for 10′s sake. This indicates to me that God’s reason for not destroying the righteous with the wicked is that it isn’t a “right” thing for him to do.
God’s ways all make sense. That of itself answers that question to me. I can read Scripture and understand sufficiently to have rough ideas of why God does this or that under some particular circumstance. I can look at life and do the same. This means order – laws.
“That third sentence needs a lot of argumentation. You can talk about God’s work, and what God accomplishes through God’s work. But neither of those entails that God is pursuing anything. And God’s pursuing something through God’s work does not entail that what is being pursued is the reason for God’s work.”
It would seem odd that Christ should put in so much work, say that his Father is doing the same – working hard at our happiness, yet this whole thing has no specific reasoning. We would have a senseless God indeed. All that suffering in the garden and cross. I don’t see Scripture as supporting a senseless God. Some parts may seem a bit obscure. And some parts were written to a spiritually backward people. But I feel Christ made it all plain to those who really hear his message with the Spirit.
God causing the sun to shine on the evil and on the just demonstrates to me that he isn’t the egomaniac that texts, given to those spiritually ignorant, portrays. But the understandable God of unconditional love that Christ portrays.
Doug–
Thanks again for the answer.
On Christ’s atonement:
Your question assumes Western soteriologies. I prefer that of the Eastern Orthodox (ontological reconciliation rather than crime and punishment).
That God can’t lie:
Doesn’t it say God doesn’t lie, not that God can’t lie?
On God’s changeability:
Change makes no sense for a timeless being whether the being has laws or not.
On touching the ark:
Did God kill him or was he killed? Lots of people get killed without God causing their deaths.
On God and Abraham:
You’re reading “having reasons” into the text. It isn’t there. God does the right thing. We agree. Doesn’t mean God does it because it’s right. That would imply God has to think about what to do before God acts, notice which is the right way to act, and then act that way. That would make no sense if God is extra-temporal.
And making sense requires having reasons?
The claim that God would be senseless has no more sense than saying that God has reasons. It implies that God could have reasons but doesn’t, that God instead is acting like we do when we don’t think about something before doing it, but simply act.
But such talk is meaningless when we are speaking of a timeless God for whom there is no before and after, no empty places in time before God’s actions where there should have been a reason but wasn’t.
I really appreciate your answers, but this is getting pointless since you still haven’t answered the question of how God can be timeless and yet have reasons. Until then even if everything you are saying makes sense, it can’t make sense to me. So I need your help on that question before anything else :-)
Thanks for the conversation!
“On Christ’s atonement:
Your question assumes Western soteriologies. I prefer that of the Eastern Orthodox (ontological reconciliation rather than crime and punishment).
Whatever way a person wishes to evaluate the logic of an atonement, we are left with the scriptures claiming the Father did us a favour by sending Christ to atone (John 3:16). We are to be grateful to the Father for this, we are informed. Yet this action is claimed to have been done so that the Father will be appeased. This is contradictory regardless of how we view it.
“Doesn’t it say God doesn’t lie, not that God can’t lie?
Hebrews 6:18 “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation..”
Titus 1:2 “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”
“On God’s changeability:
Change makes no sense for a timeless being whether the being has laws or not.”
Why does change make no sense for a timeless being? I can think of many reasons why it could be that an eternal being would change. Eternity has constant movement in which things happen. It is like a big circle: Things go out (from your actions) and results occur that create the next set of circumstances which you respond to. We are really in eternity now, time is an illusion that just confuses us. But don’t ask me to prove the last 2 sentences from the Bible only. However the rest is Biblically demonstratable.
“On touching the ark:
Did God kill him or was he killed? Lots of people get killed without God causing their deaths.”
2 Samuel 6:7 “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.”
Skipping to your expressed concern before answering the rest:
“I really appreciate your answers, but this is getting pointless since you still haven’t answered the question of how God can be timeless and yet have reasons.”
God says that from eternity to eternity he is God. What does that mean? Scripturally time began when the light was divided from the darkness. Time will end when the earth explodes and we get a new atmosphere and earth. So what it means is that God was God when eternity only existed and there was no time (i.e. at the point that the light and dark were created). And that God will still be God when we go back to eternity (i.e. when the earth is destroyed).
So the question is, can a being existing in eternity have reasons. The answer is a resounding, yes. As I have stated, and I’m not the only person who realises that time is truly an illusion. We dwell in eternity and have reasons for doing things. We progress or regress as an entity.
“That would imply God has to think about what to do before God acts, notice which is the right way to act, and then act that way. That would make no sense if God is extra-temporal.”
I’m curious as to what set of laws you are placing upon extra-temporal beings for them to make sense? God acts upon knowledge and feelings. The scriptures don’t support an unthinking being with no feelings. “God is love,” stated John. How could a statement be more plain? There is so much love in God (and I have personally stood in his presence and felt it, and totally agree with John) that John could be no plainer. God has a love that is unexplainable. What God does is out of that love for us. That is the reason – love. This is also the testimony demonstrated by Christ.
The God of scripture has demonstrated reasons. And he has a demonstrated law. And that law was confirmed by Christ who taught and practiced it.
Love – “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…” John 3:16. You want to know if God has reasons? There it is again stated plainly. God sent his Son because he loved the world so much. Love of us (“the world” – as used here) is why he sent his Son.
Don’t fall into the trap of so many where in spite of the testimony of scripture you prefer a weirdo being that is an adult replacement for Alice in Wonderland. I would exhort you to believe the God clearly demonstrated in Christ. That was the true “Holy One of Israel” for us to see in plain sight. No magic transformations to confuse us.
If you pose me to be wrong I would ask, “what possible scriptural support can you give for a non-thinking God with no reasons?”
You believe God is contradictory and that God makes sense?
Thanks for the verses on lying!
Please describe to me “change,” “movement,” and “things happening” without using time.
If time is an illusion, then so is the entire universe, since the universe’s fabric is space-time.
We dwell in eternity? How exactly?
Please tell me what “progress” and “regress” mean without using time.
None. I’m pointing out the laws of sense under which statements function. The statement “God has reasons” has no sense.
My opinion of John 3:16 has already been stated above. You can read it there and respond to what I said, if you wish.
I have no idea what that sentence means. This may be because I have never read Alice in Wonderland :-)
I don’t pose you to be anything.
I only pose that God would be contradictory if that was all there was to it.
I had read your view of John 3:16, but it doesn’t detract from the continually demonstrated scriptural point that God does things out of love for us.
It occurs to me from reading your way of evaluating this that you aren’t really after a scriptural answer but a philosophical answer.
The only problem with that is that it gets down to your individual versions of what laws we have to define what is philosophically correct.
I replied to your comment because you challenged that Book of Mormon’s claim. But nothing you have said makes it wrong. Your quote of it is misplaced in my opinion. You haven’t presented Biblical evidence against it, nor any logical evidence against it. I have presented piles of scriptural support for it which you have rejected on the basis that you believe Biblical statements don’t mean what they say.
I have continued on in that hope that you may be an earnest seeker of truth rather than a person intellectualizing. But you have rejected the statements of the Bible in an effort to support this idea you seem to want to hold onto.
The direction you are going with this thinking is meaningless in my opinion, because your thinking in this regard is like this God you believe in. All reasons are meaningless to you. You figure you’ll just obey this God and all will be well. And I’m sure I couldn’t convince you otherwise regardless of what I say, so the conversation is pointless. Thanks for your input, anyway.
[...] even has a few things to say about the Problem of Evil. As I’ve said before, I don’t think there is an answer to the Problem of Evil. But Polkinghorne’s approach [...]
[...] to. Seeing as I’m skeptical both of the historical claims of the Book of Mormon and the theodicy I’ve found in said book, I shall be interested to hear how Romney will deal with the issues (I expect he’ll avoid [...]
Hello again, it’s been a long time. I miss chatting with you.
How does this grab you? The “problem” of evil is that it inhibits ones ability to live by getting one to focus on things that are contrary to the facilitation of ones vitality, prosperity, spirituality, etc. Note that evil (which is an inversion of the word live) makes us “turn around”, i.e. to go backwards on the path that’s designed for us to live.
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
On the personal level, knowing that we will die physically invariably makes us want to take care of our bodies. On the social level, we may seek to leave our “mark” in the world. Spiritually, we realize that in order to be atoned, we must “be dead to sin”.
Rom. 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Consider this also:
Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory…
In conclusion, evil exists due to God’s sovereignty, though He for the most part allows us to decide whether or not we want to participate in it or not. When we overcome evil we get the blessings, however, He gets the glory.
God bless you!
[...] We might ask, colloquially, “He still means what He said, right?” Therefore, when we understand what He said, we are meaning the same thing along with Him — the two of us together and “simultaneously.” (I use the scare-quotes because God created time, and, therefore, cannot be bound by time words and concepts.) [...]
[...] Pain and evil and suffering are problems, but you can’t express those problems through the question, “Is it worth it?” since the question only seems to make sense. It’s not actually a question; rather, it’s a vague gesturing at the problem. (The same thing goes for the Problem of Evil.) [...]