Is evil really God's fault?

[Justice]

As a result of their fall, God said "man has become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

Cursed from one standpoint, but blessed for the opportunity to progress.

PC, the Book of Mormon offers more information on what Satan meant when he said they would not die. He had a plan that would have allowed them to become immortal again after eating the forbidden fruit. He was trying to turn the attention away from the spiritual death and focus on the physical death. When, in fact, God wanted to focus on the spiritual death first, before they were redeemed from physical death. This is why man was given "time" or a probation period, so they could repent before they were made immortal agian.

Also, the curse was as much of a consequence of their actions as it was anything God did to them. But, God did allow it, so...

Edited November 18, 2009 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, thank you. It's much easier to understand the LDS position as one largely based on the BoM's added explanation. Trying to read Genesis 3 that way alone is difficult at best.

[rameumptom]

The problem of evil is: How can a just, benevolent god, allow so much suffering - either he can't do something about it, or he won't.

One of the proposed solutions to the problem of evil is that evil is educative - that by suffering, either natural or moral evil, we are able to overcome it and learn from it, we progress by having been subjected to it. That solution gets God off the hook. However, there is much evil that causes much suffering that is not educative: an infant that is secretly kidnapped and horrifically savaged in the woods and buried. The infant doesn't learn from it because he/she is an infant. The parents my learn to overcome their grief but they don't know all the details of the horrific abuse the infant solved so more evil is at work than is necessary for the educative process - which means the problem of evil is not really solved - how can a good and powerful God allow so much suffering?

Your attempted solution - that's it's not really that the kidnapping and rape and torturous death of an infant (for example) is all that bad in the long scheme of things - is wholly unsatisfying. Would you, a parent, allow your child to be subjected to any suffering if you could prevent it? I, as a loving parent, do whatever I can to protect and cherish my child - maybe falling out of a tree and breaking their arm would be good for them in the long run but if I see them fall, I am going to catch them. If an murder tries to take my child, I am going to prevent them.

Is the horrible suffering in natural disaster commensurate with education people derive from it?

Carrying your argument to it's logical conclusions we should just let people suffer - it's no bid deal and it's good for them. Perhaps you could explain how such horrific suffering, natural and moral, is no big deal and good for em - without an appeal to mystery?

But suffering IS a big deal. It is what helps to exalt us. Your philosophical arguments are made bases upon a narrow, mortal existence. If a child dies at 1 year old of abuse or disease, it is a huge tragedy in such a narrow context.

But when viewed from eons of time, it is also minuscule. And given that I have given answers from the D&C and modern scripture, which you seem to totally ignore in your protests, I'd say Joseph Smith would agree with me.

Pres Uchtdorf told of his struggling to deliver laundry as a boy on a bike. It left him out of breath and struggling frequently. Yet, as he now looks back on it, he sees it as a blessing, because it prepared his debilitated lungs for his future as a pilot. I am convinced it also prepared him for his role as prophet and apostle, as well.

These "evils" as you would call them, are only evil in the context you place them. One person's evil act is another person's opportunity to triumph and be exalted. God allows natural and man-made evil to occur, because they force us to overcome and deal with trials.

I do not view God as an unfeeling, unmoved being. Rather, he is the most moved Being. He cried when destroying the earth by flood. He cried among the Jews, and he cried before the Nephites. He is not all powerful, otherwise he could have just created us with a TULIP form of "free will" and have everyone blissful for eternity. Rather, he has given us true free will, and we need the struggle and the pain in order to be exalted and move forward.

What we consider evil is a temporal and temporary event. The person who dies in a tragic way does not remain dead, nor does not need to suffer eternally over the tragedy. 2 Ne 26 tells us that Jesus heals such pains and resurrects us so that we can live again. All earthly tragedies, except for sin, are temporary. And even sin can be overcome through repentance and faith.

[Hemidakota]

As a result of their fall, God said "man has become as one of us, to know good and evil..."

Cursed from one standpoint, but blessed for the opportunity to progress.

PC, the Book of Mormon offers more information on what Satan meant when he said they would not die. He had a plan that would have allowed them to become immortal again after eating the forbidden fruit. He was trying to turn the attention away from the spiritual death and focus on the physical death. When, in fact, God wanted to focus on the spiritual death first, before they were redeemed from physical death. This is why man was given "time" or a probation period, so they could repent before they were made immortal agian.

Also, the curse was as much of a consequence of their actions as it was anything God did to them. But, God did allow it, so...

Actually, the Doctrine and Covenants is more plainer than the Book of Mormon concerning Lucifer...

[Hemidakota]

I just reread the section. God tells Adam and Eve not to eat or they'll die. The Serpent says they won't die, and they will become like God, knowing good and evil. They eat. God asks why, and Eve says the Serpent deceived her.

You would suggest that this is 100% authentic, true and acceptable--that it was reasonable and righteous for Eve to believe the Serpent over her Creator??? Then why does God respond by saying that because of what they have done they are cursed???

I cannot simply read this passage and possibly side with Adam and Eve's innocence vs. God's vengence. IMHO you do so because you are married to their innocence, and the idea that Heavenly Father planned this in advance. The passage itself is not complicated, and Adam and Eve come across as guilty, and the LORD as quite merciful--clothing them, and promising a Messiah.

Eat the fruit and become smart, like God. Again...if you're like God you don't need God. And God responds by cursing them.

There is more to this caper than what is printed in the scriptures that is given in the temple of GOD.

Oh come now. Adam and Eve had everything they needed--but it was from God. All that Satan could offer them was the knowledge to break that dependence. It's not that hard of a connection to make. Take a look-see a few chapters down the line, and you have humanity attempting to build a tower so they can overthrow God!

[Traveler]

I just reread the section. God tells Adam and Eve not to eat or they'll die. The Serpent says they won't die, and they will become like God, knowing good and evil. They eat. God asks why, and Eve says the Serpent deceived her.

You would suggest that this is 100% authentic, true and acceptable--that it was reasonable and righteous for Eve to believe the Serpent over her Creator??? Then why does God respond by saying that because of what they have done they are cursed???

I cannot simply read this passage and possibly side with Adam and Eve's innocence vs. God's vengence. IMHO you do so because you are married to their innocence, and the idea that Heavenly Father planned this in advance. The passage itself is not complicated, and Adam and Eve come across as guilty, and the LORD as quite merciful--clothing them, and promising a Messiah.

Eat the fruit and become smart, like God. Again...if you're like God you don't need God. And God responds by cursing them.

Oh come now. Adam and Eve had everything they needed--but it was from God. All that Satan could offer them was the knowledge to break that dependence. It's not that hard of a connection to make. Take a look-see a few chapters down the line, and you have humanity attempting to build a tower so they can overthrow God!

My point is that if all the information about Adam and Eve is accurate and complete within Biblical context then in order to understand correct doctrine as to what happened in Eden that the conclusions that we are lead to would indicate that G-d was complicit in what transpired or that he made a “mistake”.

Of course we know that G-d does not foster and bring evil by his designs. However, if we must formulate doctrine by only what is written in the Bible narrative there are conclusions that require speculation or that we draw from another source or that we formulate doctrine based on what we are given. The Eden epoch was in essence the opening of “Pandora’s box”. There are some things that we must deal with from the Biblical account.

1. Based on the Biblical account Adam and Eve did not make a knowledgeable and free choice. Their decision was made with incomplete information and they were tricked into a choice that they would not otherwise have made. And yet they were punished (damned to hell if you will – understanding that death and hell are the same). I find this most interesting in light that many believe the punishment of Adam and Eve to be just, divine and valid also believe for themselves that they will be saved by G-d despite that they do not think keeping G-d’s commandments are even necessary. (do you not see a disconnect here???)

2. Adam and Eve did not plan a rebellion against G-d. I believe this is an incorrect notion and false doctrine that is part of an effort to distort the truth. The nature of Adam and Eve after leaving Eden indicates that they loved the L-rd and were not conspiring against him. They were not really willing participants – unless there is something that we should know but is missing.

3. There are only two possible conclusions from the Biblical account. One is that G-d’s will was thwarted and that Satan was victorious in “outsmarting” the L-rd. Or that everything that happened was as G-d wanted and planned it. Both of these conclusions are problematic. The first would be proof that G-d is not all knowing and all powerful and that he is venerable to Satan’s cleverness. The second would be proof that G-d was complicit and at minimum responsible for allowing the whole thing to occur without doing anything himself. This second is really problematic because we are told in another place that to know to do good and do it not is evil.

The only reasonable conclusion that I have been able to draw from all this is that the Bible is not 100% reliable for doctrine and that in order to avoid human speculation or incorrect conclusions we must have another source from which we obtain what is missing.

The Traveler

[stormwitch]

3. There are only two possible conclusions from the Biblical account. One is that G-d’s will was thwarted and that Satan was victorious in “outsmarting” the L-rd. Or that everything that happened was as G-d wanted and planned it. Both of these conclusions are problematic. The first would be proof that G-d is not all knowing and all powerful and that he is venerable to Satan’s cleverness. The second would be proof that G-d was complicit and at minimum responsible for allowing the whole thing to occur without doing anything himself. This second is really problematic because we are told in another place that to know to do good and do it not is evil.

The only reasonable conclusion that I have been able to draw from all this is that the Bible is not 100% reliable for doctrine and that in order to avoid human speculation or incorrect conclusions we must have another source from which we obtain what is missing.

The Traveler

D&C 76:3:[God's] purposes fail not neither are any who can stay his hand. --> God's will has not been thwarted and never will. If the transgression of Adam and Eve had not been part of his plan, there would have been no need of a redeemer. And there are sometimes more than two options... Satan would have been victorious only if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life as well as from the tree of knowledge. But this is something GOD would have never allowed.

But nevertheless he allowed Adam and Eve to choose: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt noit eat of it, nevertehless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee." (Moses 3:17) They both knew they had a choice.. and after Satan convinced Eve (and she convinced Adam), they had to take the hard way as it was explained to them when they were cast out. Satan had his way... in a manner of speaking, but it was still according to GODs plan.

There might have been another way and other options IF Adam and Eve had resisted (and maybe we were told about this in the great council in heaven), but here we don't know, and we need not know. But this would have been also according to Gods plan.

Evil is never Gods fault, it is consequence to our decisions, or to the decisions made by others. Evil is an option according to the eternal laws to which even God is bound. He allows evil but never causes it.

[Justice]

Actually, the Doctrine and Covenants is more plainer than the Book of Mormon concerning Lucifer...

It mentions what he wanted, yes, but Alma outlines part of Satan's plan in detail (12 and 42). His plan is not mentioned in that detail in the D&C.

[Justice]

D&C 76:3:[God's] purposes fail not neither are any who can stay his hand. --> God's will has not been thwarted and never will. If the transgression of Adam and Eve had not been part of his plan, there would have been no need of a redeemer.

...and that Redeemer was selected and ordained even before the foundation of the earth was laid. I think too many people don't realize the impact that that piece of information alone has on the interpretation of the fall.

Very good post.

[Justice]

Satan would have been victorious only if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life as well as from the tree of knowledge. But this is something GOD would have never allowed.

Or, had they eaten of the tree of life after they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

/Agreed.

The second part of your statement has been the subject of my studies lately. It begs the question:

Will God interfere with man's agency?

I know that He placed a cheribum and flaming sword to guard the way of the tree of life, but I wonder if He did it for Adam and Eve specifically, and I wonder the timing of it, and what it might imply.

Alma 42:

1 And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery.

I have learned over the years that, especially when interpreting the New Testament, that in order to understand the teaching properly you have to figure out what the question is. In some areas of the Book of Mormon the question is given. If we remember the question that Alma is answering it can go a long way toward our understanding of his words.

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

Verse 2 is key, but before I comment I want to post verses 3 and 4 for context.

3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

Watch the wording very closely. Verse 2 says:

after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden

Then it is re-stated in the same order:

yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden

So, it appears that Adam and Eve left the Garden before God guarded the tree of life. And, notice it doesn't say He guarded it specifically from Adam or Eve, but from "man."

Also, here is another peculiar thing in these verses:

there was a time granted unto man to repent

This doesn't sound like a curse to me. This sounds like a reward for something they did.

OK... where am I going with this?

It's clear Satan's plan for them was to partake of the forbidden fruit (just as God's plan), but then he wanted them to eat of the tree of life and become immortal, which God wanted them to reap the consequences of their transgression and learn faith and repentance through Jesus Christ, and have Christ Himself become mortal and reverese the affects of the fall in man, and atone for their sins.

It's not mentioned in scripture, but it appears Adam and Eve (after they ate the forbidden fruit) made the choice to fall and remain mortal instead of taking the tree of life and becoming immortal, or they made the choice to follow Father's plan over Satan's plan. After they made this choice they were granted a time period, away from the tree of life, where they could repent and be redeemed. Plus, it stands to reason that they needed to agree (or covenant) to multiply and replenish the earth, or to keep the first commandment.

If they indeed did make this second choice it would answer a great many questions about the fall of Adam. I won't get into them all now, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this first.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Justice

[Sethin09]

Saying that such things as "the fall of Adam" are part of some underlying plan indicates that an omnipotent god is not only capable of evil, but promotes its existence. With such a plan in place, small ripples aside, predetermined good and evil people shall exist no matter what and these evil people are, according to the plan, going to whatever evil place exists by default. It's a bit like punishing Armless Billy for not raising his hand before speaking so the rest of the class knows to raise their hand.

Along similar lines, saying 'evil is never god's fault' is a bit ludicrous in the context of a monotheistic universe. There are three assumptions that monotheism is based on: there is but one god, this god is all powerful, this one god created everything. By definition of these assumptions, any monotheist must come to terms that not only has this god created evil, but has done so willingly and with forethought.

There cannot be laws that a monotheistic god must obey, it negates the principle of being omnipotent. Also the mere suggestion that there are overriding laws shakes the theory that there is more than one god, for who would have made such laws (nothing is before god) and would enforce said law (there is but one god).

Making the precept that evil is "absence of god" again breaks the mold of monotheism. If one god, as there must be only one, created everything then everything is of the one god. Either one god created everything, either directly or indirectly via pre-constructed direct means, thus everything is both tangibly and in the presence of god, or was created spontaneously.

[Justice]

Saying that such things as "the fall of Adam" are part of some underlying plan indicates that an omnipotent god is not only capable of evil, but promotes its existence.

I suppose you can understand it that way, if you wish. I believe that evil has always existed, as has the family of man. I believe God is a glorified, perfected, holy man. He is offspring of a glorified, perfected, holy man. That God perfects His children is the way of existence... it has always been going on this way.

So, out of necessity, a man must choose "God's plan" and not the evil that exists. The plan was not technically engineered and designed by God, but is the only way offspring can be exalted and perfected. It becomes God's plan when He chooses to create an earth and set the plan in motion. By removing evil, even if He could, God would be removing the only way His offspring can be perfected and exalted.

That's a very different way of looking at it than you do.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Saying that such things as "the fall of Adam" are part of some underlying plan indicates that an omnipotent god is not only capable of evil, but promotes its existence. With such a plan in place, small ripples aside, predetermined good and evil people shall exist no matter what and these evil people are, according to the plan, going to whatever evil place exists by default. It's a bit like punishing Armless Billy for not raising his hand before speaking so the rest of the class knows to raise their hand.

Along similar lines, saying 'evil is never god's fault' is a bit ludicrous in the context of a monotheistic universe. There are three assumptions that monotheism is based on: there is but one god, this god is all powerful, this one god created everything. By definition of these assumptions, any monotheist must come to terms that not only has this god created evil, but has done so willingly and with forethought.

There cannot be laws that a monotheistic god must obey, it negates the principle of being omnipotent. Also the mere suggestion that there are overriding laws shakes the theory that there is more than one god, for who would have made such laws (nothing is before god) and would enforce said law (there is but one god).

Making the precept that evil is "absence of god" again breaks the mold of monotheism. If one god, as there must be only one, created everything then everything is of the one god. Either one god created everything, either directly or indirectly via pre-constructed direct means, thus everything is both tangibly and in the presence of god, or was created spontaneously.

I don't think it's fair to say God promotes the existence of evil. Without evil, we would not be able to choose. Part of this life is learning how to make good choices. If we cannot choose between good and evil, right and wrong, then what's the point of learning how to choose in the first place?

These are your assumptions of monotheism. The LDS idea of God is that he is but one of an eternal line of Gods; that he didn't create anything 'ex nihlio', but that he organized his creations from pre-existing matter. Because he works within a pre-existing framework of reality, he did not create evil, nor did he create good; these things have always existed.

Then why does the Biblical God seem to follow laws? How does being obedient to law negate omnipotence? Just because you follow an ordered existence doesn't mean you can't be omnipotent. Also, LDS doctrines have plenty of room for other Gods to exist; we simply are forbidden from worshipping them.

I'm not sure I get what the last paragraph said, lemme read it again...Ah, you're sticking to the idea that God literally created everything himself from an empty void. In that model, you'd be correct. On the other hand, that is not what LDS theology teaches, nor does the bible say anything like it.

Saying that God actively supports evil, that he created it deliberately, is the the same as saying that God deliberately established something he'd have to fight against; something that would approach the ability to unravel everything he was working for.

It's similar to the idea of a man beginning to work on his car, only to deliberately break something else on the vehicle while he was making the initial repairs. Why would any intelligent being do that much less a God?

Edited November 19, 2009 by RipplecutBuddha
re-formatting the response so it makes sense...

[Sethin09]

Since it's been established by the previous poster that LDS doctrine is not monotheistic then the precepts of monotheistic existence does not apply to those of that faith. One might argue that, like cultures that have morays different from one another, other gods' creations may follow different lines of acceptability thus creating this god's creation's concept of evil.

Saying that a creator creating something to struggle against is faulty seems a bit droll. In Christianity did god not create satan? King and governments have been known to fund, create, or covertly promote agencies that act against itself. A person working on a car might deliberately harm the vehicle if there is something to gain from the maladjustment (a service station seeing a return customer, the worker of the car wants to see the pretty girl at the service station, etc).

If minor destruction leads to greater final product (vis-a-vis to teach a lesson, weed out the unfaithful, or other ideas already posted) then it is not only entirely probable that a god would make something to combat, but might simply be the only way to necessitate the end result.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Since it's been established by the previous poster that LDS doctrine is not monotheistic then the precepts of monotheistic existence does not apply to those of that faith. One might argue that, like cultures that have morays different from one another, other gods' creations may follow different lines of acceptability thus creating this god's creation's concept of evil.

Saying that a creator creating something to struggle against is faulty seems a bit droll. In Christianity did god not create satan? King and governments have been known to fund, create, or covertly promote agencies that act against itself. A person working on a car might deliberately harm the vehicle if there is something to gain from the maladjustment (a service station seeing a return customer, the worker of the car wants to see the pretty girl at the service station, etc).

If minor destruction leads to greater final product (vis-a-vis to teach a lesson, weed out the unfaithful, or other ideas already posted) then it is not only entirely probable that a god would make something to combat, but might simply be the only way to necessitate the end result.

According to LDS theology God did create Satan, but he did not make satan evil; that happened due to Satan's choices.

In the car example, I specifically stated a man that was working on his own car; not a shady mechanic looking for some extra dollars.

Here again, in the framework of a God that creates everything around himself, why would he allow conflict? It would follow greater reason to simply make things the way he wants them without having to deal with conflict at all.

Ask yourself this...you want cookies...you want to make them yourself. Are you going to go through the steps of making cookies and baking them in the best manner, or are you going to get halfway, then suddenly add three cups of salt to the dough?

[Justice]

Saying that a creator creating something to struggle against is faulty seems a bit droll.

That's like saying good, righteous parents made their rebellious kid evil. Just because God had offspring doesn't mean He forced them to be good or evil. We have agency and can be whatever we choose to be.

[prisonchaplain]

My point is that if all the information about Adam and Eve is accurate and complete within Biblical context then in order to understand correct doctrine as to what happened in Eden that the conclusions that we are lead to would indicate that G-d was complicit in what transpired or that he made a “mistake”.

This just isn't so. I've yet to read any commentary on Gen. 3 that suggests God made a mistake, or that he was complicit in Adam and Eve's sin. Again, the reading is so plain. He told Adam and Eve what not to do, and what would happen if they did. They disobeyed, and he punished--and yet, hold out hope for reconciliation, through the Savior. Where in this do you find Adam and Eve ignorant? And why do you find God being mistaken or complicit?

1. Based on the Biblical account Adam and Eve did not make a knowledgeable and free choice. Their decision was made with incomplete information and they were tricked into a choice that they would not otherwise have made.

This is your presumption. It does not square with the biblical account, though. God spelled it out for them. Don't eat the fruit from that tree. If you do you will die. They understood this perfectly well. While Eve claims she was deceived, seduction is the story the Bible tells. Satan promises her knowledge that will make her like God. He does lie, saying she won't die. Yet, even a five year old knows that s/he should trust mommy and daddy rather than a stranger.

And again, God punishes Adam and Eve with a curse. Thus, if we believe God to be just, we cannot presume Adam and Eve's ignorance and innocence. Their lack of the knowledge of good and evil would be like Jesus'. He never did wrong so he did not know evil. Hardly made him foolish or naive.

And yet they were punished (damned to hell if you will – understanding that death and hell are the same).

Actually, the simplest reading of Genesis 3 is that the "death" was physical, not spiritual. Especially considering the promise of a Messiah from the line of Eve.

2. Adam and Eve did not plan a rebellion against G-d. I believe this is an incorrect notion and false doctrine that is part of an effort to distort the truth.

Traveler, do you really mean to accuse me of making an effort to distort the truth??? I'm the one suggesting that Adam and Eve rebelled. You believe that I am willfully and knowing spreading deception???

The nature of Adam and Eve after leaving Eden indicates that they loved the L-rd and were not conspiring against him. They were not really willing participants – unless there is something that we should know but is missing.

This is an unnecessary presumption. People who love the Lord slip into selfishness, self-direction, and pleasure-seeking sin with great frequency. Such is not good, but it happens. 70X7 and all that, you know? Why is it so hard to simply believe that Adam and Eve chose to go after this special knowledge, apart from God, because it looked good and they wanted it?

3. here are only two possible conclusions from the Biblical account. One is that G-d’s will was thwarted and that Satan was victorious in “outsmarting” the L-rd. Or that everything that happened was as G-d wanted and planned it. Both of these conclusions are problematic.

I agree with the last sentence. How dare we force scripture into "only two possible conclusions???" I'd suggest that God's perfect will is thwarted daily, every time we sin. God knows, he knew beforehand, and yet, he works around, through, and with our foibles, and his ultimate plans are never circumvented.

The only reasonable conclusion that I have been able to draw from all this is that the Bible is not 100% reliable for doctrine and that in order to avoid human speculation or incorrect conclusions we must have another source from which we obtain what is missing.

It's reasonable if you are already convinced that you have missing pieces. Otherwise, me thinks your added knowledge was used to read many of your presumptions into this story. All just imho, of course.

Edited November 19, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Hemidakota]

It was actually Eve who had the desire to know more and lacked the patience in waiting for further instruction from the Godhead or those assigned to teach them. Adam kept the commandments as given by the FATHER and only partook knowing he would fail without Eve if she was casted out. This is a difference within the garden fallen state.

[Sethin09]

It was actually Eve who had the desire to know more and lacked the patience in waiting for further instruction from the Godhead or those assigned to teach them. Adam kept the commandments as given by the FATHER and only partook knowing he would fail without Eve if she was casted out. This is a difference within the garden fallen state.

How misogynistic

[FunkyTown]

How misogynistic

I love the fact that the Ouroboros is your avatar. It made me wary of anything you had to say before you said it.

I should also point out that saying that an Omnipotent God must not follow rules is a bit of doublespeak. When you add the words 'God can' to a meaningless sentence, it does not make the sentence meaningful. For instance: Saying 'God can stand in the corner of a round room that has no corners, never did and never will' does not give the sentence meaning or take away from its absurdity.

Omnipotence is the ability to do all things which are possible: Walk on the surface of a black hole? Check. Create the universe? Check. Make an object so heavy even He can't lift it? No.

You have assigned an arbitrary and incorrect meaning to omnipotence and are seeking to manipulate people with your doublespeak.

You're incorrect and we need not be fooled by you.

[Snow]

According to LDS theology God did create Satan, but he did not make satan evil; that happened due to Satan's choices.

If your statement were accurate - which it is not - God would still be responsible for evil. If a creator creates the parties, creates the conditions, creates the dynamics and then gives free choice, from which evil must and will inevitably flow, that creator can't very well look the other way and claim innocence.

However, in LDS theology, Satan, like man, is co-eternal with God. Satan and man were fashioned in some sense by God but Satan brought his own eternal essence to the game.

[Snow]

How misogynistic

Dumb comment. The poster made a statement that they believe to be factually correct. You, without any reason, attribute the motivation of woman-hating to the statement. I'd ask you to support your claim but we both know that you cannot.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If your statement were accurate - which it is not - God would still be responsible for evil. If a creator creates the parties, creates the conditions, creates the dynamics and then gives free choice, from which evil must and will inevitably flow, that creator can't very well look the other way and claim innocence.

However, in LDS theology, Satan, like man, is co-eternal with God. Satan and man were fashioned in some sense by God but Satan brought his own eternal essence to the game.

God does not create universal laws. Free choice by definition means there are options that are not the same option. To give the option for good there has to be the option for bad. One cannot be given without the other and this is a law or definition that cannot change any more than 1+1=2. So, then it comes down to whether it is better to keep all of His children in a state of no choice or to give them choice with evil being one of the options associated with that choice. Didn't we already win this battle in the pre-earthly life? ..... Oh yeah, Satan wants to keep fighting that battle.

[prisonchaplain]

If your statement were accurate - which it is not - God would still be responsible for evil. If a creator creates the parties, creates the conditions, creates the dynamics and then gives free choice, from which evil must and will inevitably flow, that creator can't very well look the other way and claim innocence.

I had a philosophy professor make this very contention. While I understand it, I do not agree that God's foreknowledge makes him culpable. Can we be said to have free will if God knows ahead of time how we will choose? If no, we're not free. If yes, is God responsible for our choices, given he created the circumstances?

[Snow]

But suffering IS a big deal. It is what helps to exalt us. Your philosophical arguments are made bases upon a narrow, mortal existence. If a child dies at 1 year old of abuse or disease, it is a huge tragedy in such a narrow context.

But when viewed from eons of time, it is also minuscule. And given that I have given answers from the D&C and modern scripture, which you seem to totally ignore in your protests, I'd say Joseph Smith would agree with me.

Pres Uchtdorf told of his struggling to deliver laundry as a boy on a bike. It left him out of breath and struggling frequently. Yet, as he now looks back on it, he sees it as a blessing, because it prepared his debilitated lungs for his future as a pilot. I am convinced it also prepared him for his role as prophet and apostle, as well.

These "evils" as you would call them, are only evil in the context you place them. One person's evil act is another person's opportunity to triumph and be exalted. God allows natural and man-made evil to occur, because they force us to overcome and deal with trials.

I do not view God as an unfeeling, unmoved being. Rather, he is the most moved Being. He cried when destroying the earth by flood. He cried among the Jews, and he cried before the Nephites. He is not all powerful, otherwise he could have just created us with a TULIP form of "free will" and have everyone blissful for eternity. Rather, he has given us true free will, and we need the struggle and the pain in order to be exalted and move forward.

What we consider evil is a temporal and temporary event. The person who dies in a tragic way does not remain dead, nor does not need to suffer eternally over the tragedy. 2 Ne 26 tells us that Jesus heals such pains and resurrects us so that we can live again. All earthly tragedies, except for sin, are temporary. And even sin can be overcome through repentance and faith.

I'm not sure why this has to all be explained... but okay. Let's recap your proposed solutions to the problem of evil:

1. Evil is educative, i.e. important in soul-making.

2. And if that doesn't explain it, then evil is no big deal in the eternal scheme of things (so stop yer whining).

3. And if that's not enough, then Joseph Smith agrees with you.

4. And if all that isn't good enough, then God is not omnipotent.

So let's talk about each a little more.

1. (Evil is educative, i.e. important in soul-making). That only explains some suffering, but certainly not all. We learn by experience and we also learn by overcoming adversity but that ignores gratuitous evil - that evil above and beyond what is required to educate and soul-make. Take a very young child that is kidnapped, tortured, abused and killed. No one in their right mind would argue that the child had just learned a valuable lesson. The child is too young to understand. It's an insane thought. Even if someone, for example the parents, thus learned how to deal with adversity, there is so much evil beyond what is required that it is merely gratuitous. Let's say that the child's body is never found, or if found, it is decomposed or merely a skeleton so that the magnitude of the abuse cannot be known. Since it is not known, it is gratuitous and unnecessary. Your argument doesn't solve it.

2. (evil is no big deal in the eternal scheme of things) The rape and torture and murder of very young child is no big deal? Anyone with a child of their own instantly knows how inadequate that answer is. What wouldn't a parent give to to prevent their child from suffering such horror as rape, torture and murder? This mortality is not just a blip on the eternal radar. It is an extremely important and significant part of eternity. It is the key part that determines the rest of eternity. Can one truly imagine that a powerful loving deity would observe the rape, torture and murder of an infant and simply defer because it's not that big of a deal? Maybe you think that way but it certainly doesn't explain solve the problem. Do you think that God views the Holocaust as "miniscule"?

3. (Joseph Smith agrees with you). It's a logical fallacy. Try harder.

4. (God is not omnipotent). Well - that's a legitimate solution, your only completely satisfactory solution - If God could do something, then God would do something, but he isn't all-powerful so his hands are tied.... although I doubt you really understood the point you were making. I wonder if you are aware that the Church acknowledges that God is, in fact, all-powerful? Here, you haven't really solved the problem, you have just changed the problem. The traditional "trilemma" is: God is omnipotent; God is benevolent; evil (gratuitous) exists. You've now changed it to: Evil exists, God may be benevolent but is not omnipotent. Problem solved.