Does morality require a god?

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

When you want to define truths you are looking for absolutes, faith puts aside the absolutes. We need to have faith in bigger things not turning Mt Dew in to gold. We should have faith in an afterlife, in a God and creator. We can no more prove this than turning Mt dew in to gold but I would rather have a little faith than to believe that when I die nothing will happen.

We're far off the topic of my original post. However, it sounds like you are suggesting that the comfort the religion provides to you is worth more than whether or not it is true. That's a perfectly acceptable opinion for anyone to have, and I can't find fault with it as long as people are honest about that being the case. However, for me, I sincerely want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, and I put comfort secondary to determining the truth of a proposition.

[omegaseamaster75]

12 minutes ago, EricE said:

My question is about how can you justify the morality of a god who acknowledges that he could stop the burning of women and children to happen, but chooses not to so that he can punish those who did the burning?

My opinion is that God does not get involved at that level. Otherwise why would there be death, disease, murder, war, rape, etc, etc. God can fix that can't he? Are the prayers of the suffering in this world falling on deaf ears? I don't think so, but If we try to rationalize God's actions we start to sound like your evangelical friend. 

FYI guys God didn't help you find your car keys.....

We are allowed our agency and God will stand in judgement over how we apply our agency.

[EricE]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This goes back to your original query: can you be good without God? The answer is no because you do not know what "good" is without God.

Are things good because god did them? Or does god only do good things?

[omegaseamaster75]

12 minutes ago, EricE said:

My question is about how can you justify the morality of a god who acknowledges that he could stop the burning of women and children to happen, but chooses not to so that he can punish those who did the burning?

My opinion is that God does not get involved at that level. Otherwise why would there be death, disease, murder, war, rape, etc, etc. God can fix that can't he? Are the prayers of the suffering in this world falling on deaf ears? I don't think so, but If we try to rationalize God's actions we start to sound like your evangelical friend. 

FYI guys God didn't help you find your car keys.....

We are allowed our agency and God will stand in judgement over how we apply our agency.

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

My opinion is that God does not get involved at that level. Otherwise why would there be death, disease, murder, war, rape, etc, etc. God can fix that can't he? Are the prayers of the suffering in this world falling on deaf ears?

Excellent questions. But isn't both the BoM and the Bible full of examples of god getting involved on that level? Why is god moral for intervening in some instances, but not intervening in others?

Why is god moral for leading the slaves out of captivity in Egypt, but also moral for allowing the wives and children of his believers be burned to death?

[estradling75]

32 minutes ago, EricE said:

Unfortunately that response seems to ignore my question. If you cannot understand god's morality, than how can you judge it to be moral? 

It is true, our understanding of morality, like science, continues to improve and grow with our understanding of the world. So how does it make sense to look at things like god allowing women and children to be burned to death, or (jumping over to the bible for a moment) god condoning slavery--things which we as a species have judged to be immoral--and say that actually it is moral we just don't understand it?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm asking for how you can demonstrate your claim to be true. If you cannot understand god's morality, than how can you judge it to be moral?

 

I very much answered your question... but you don't want to hear it.  We can understand God's morality... But we have accept certain givens...

This mortal life is not the end all and be all of existence.

That God has put us here for our "well being" and growth but that or mortal existence has a determined end (Also for our "well being" and growth).

That death is not the end of our "well being" and growth.

When we understand this.. The idea of God killing someone (or allowing them to die) is no more detrimental to their "well being" and growth and in fact might be beneficial.  Therefore God allowing some one to die becomes no more immoral then a parent calling their child home at the end of the day.

 

 

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

I very much answered your question... but you don't want to hear it.  We can understand God's morality... But we have accept certain givens...

This mortal life is not the end all and be all of existence.

That God has put us here for our "well being" and growth but that or mortal existence has a determined end (Also for our "well being" and growth).

That death is not the end of our "well being" and growth.

When we understand this.. The idea of God killing someone (or allowing them to die) is no more detrimental to their "well being" and growth and in fact might be beneficial.  Therefore God allowing some one to die becomes no more immoral then a parent calling their child home at the end of the day.

 

 

I want to make sure I'm understanding. You're arguing that someone burning to death is not in violation of their well-being because it is what god desired to have happen? Even though god's justification, in this case, was that he wanted to justly punish the offenders?

If we follow that line of thinking, wouldn't it then be pointless to make murder against the law, because people dying isn't against their well being?

[omegaseamaster75]

26 minutes ago, EricE said:

Excellent questions. But isn't both the BoM and the Bible full of examples of god getting involved on that level? Why is god moral for intervening in some instances, but not intervening in others?

Do you think that the BoM and Bible is/are an actual historical account of ancient peoples? Or are they mostly allegorical stories to promote faith?

 

 

 

[EricE]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Do you think that the BoM and Bible is/are an actual historical account of ancient peoples? Or are they mostly allegorical stories to promote faith?

 

 

 

I don't know. You tell me.

[omegaseamaster75]

5 minutes ago, EricE said:

I don't know. You tell me.

My opinion of their historical accuracy is not relevant. I accept them as the foundation of our doctrinal principles.

If you don't believe in their historicity or accuracy of translation you only have mans interpretation of what God's morality is.

If that's the case I recommend a study of virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. I like Plato and I think he is spot on.

[EricE]

11 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

My opinion of their historical accuracy is not relevant. I accept them as the foundation of our doctrinal principles.

If you don't believe in their historicity or accuracy of translation you only have mans interpretation of what God's morality is.

If that's the case I recommend a study of virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. I like Plato and I think he is spot on.

That would seem to be extraordinarily circular reasoning. You can only understand god's morality if you believe in god's morality? 

What evidence is there that god is acting morally in this story?

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, EricE said:

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This goes back to your original query: can you be good without God? The answer is no because you do not know what "good" is without God.

Are things good because god did them? Or does god only do good things?

The first is true, the second is not. People are perfectly capable of doing good things. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.

However, no one knows what "good" is without a touchstone. Atheists who claim they can be moral without God have to ignore the fact that mankind is inherently self-serving, and that being good is not normal. So, to arrive at the conclusion that one can be moral without God, he must assert that people can determine what "good" (or "moral") is. That is not likely.

What happens in reality is that these godless moralists use religion (all of which came, originally, from God via Adam and Eve and, later, Noah and Shem) to define goodness and morality. Even the "don't hurt others and don't take their stuff" morality of the libertarians comes from God: "Do unto others as ye would have others do unto you." You may have heard that somewhere.

No, one cannot be good, cannot be moral without God.

Lehi

[estradling75]

32 minutes ago, EricE said:

I want to make sure I'm understanding. You're arguing that someone burning to death is not in violation of their well-being because it is what god desired to have happen? Even though god's justification, in this case, was that he wanted to justly punish the offenders?

If we follow that line of thinking, wouldn't it then be pointless to make murder against the law, because people dying isn't against their well being?

You are most definitely not understanding....

If someone burns to death... it is a hard to understand and even impossible to understand if we think the guy died and it is over.  But if it is not over... if the guy's physical body dies but what he is does not then he had just gained an experience impossible to have any other way...   then if he is later resurrected then his is whole and sound with his experiences...  That is a net long term gain... at the cost of a short bit of suffering.  Thus the dental analogy I tried to use at the very first.

 

 

[Blackmarch]

15 hours ago, EricE said:

Many LDS friends have tried to convince me that morality necessarily comes from a god. But is that the case?

Setting aside other religions and gods for the moment, the god of the Book of Mormon doesn't seem like the moral compass I should follow. For example, Alma 14:10-14 describes how god told Alma and Amulek not to save the wives and children of believers from being burned to death so "that the judgements which he shall exercise upon [the offenders] in his wrath may be just..."

It seems to be saying that god is directly displaying a preference for punishing those who harm the innocent, over saving the innocents in the first place. 

Wouldn't the moral action be just the opposite?

I have yet to experience a universe with a lack of gods.

 

[EricE]

10 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The first is true, the second is not. People are perfectly capable of doing good things. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.

However, no one knows what "good" is without a touchstone. Atheists who claim they can be moral without God have to ignore the fact that mankind is inherently self-serving, and that being good is not normal. So, to arrive at the conclusion that one can be moral without God, he must assert that people can determine what "good" (or "moral") is. That is not likely.

What happens in reality is that these godless moralists use religion (all of which came, originally, from God via Adam and Eve and, later, Noah and Shem) to define goodness and morality. Even the "don't hurt others and don't take their stuff" morality of the libertarians comes from God: "Do unto others as ye would have others do unto you." You may have heard that somewhere.

No, one cannot be good, cannot be moral without God.

Lehi

Ok, so things are good because god does them. In that case, why do we not still judge the things god did as moral? For example, god specifically condoned slavery. In other stances, he condoned the mass genocide of entire populations because they were non-believers (or at other times just to prove a point, e.g. all the first-born Egyptians). 

Our morality has advanced since the bronze age to now shun such things as unspeakable acts of cruelty and immorality. So was god wrong?

[tesuji]

EricE,

You are trying to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ - specifically here the doctrines of Mormons - through reason alone.

The believing Mormons on this site are here because they have felt the witness of the Holy Spirit that this church is the church of God, re-established in modern times. This witness is a revelation from God. 

Revelation and human reason are two different ways to arrive at truth. In our religion, we say that revelation is foremost. Reason, scientific inquiry are great, but are secondary.

The first principle of our religion is faith in God. In other words, trusting in God. Do we trust in him blindly? No, we have the Holy Spirit telling us these things are true. We have past experience with God - when we obeyed and followed him, he blessed us.

Is God understandable to us? Not fully.

Quote

Isaiah 55:8 
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Can we learn things about him, and understand him partly. Yes, but maybe in the way an infant understands its parents. We believe in the future we will learn and grow to understand him more fully. But the primary way to do this is by obeying him - by analogy, by going to his class and doing his homework; by letting him teach us.

It seems like you are insisting on understanding God fully, right now. Mormons would say this is like an infant trying to understand where mom or dad go every morning to do their job, and insisting its parents explain what they do at work. Will the infant understand anything they say?

Why did God allow women and children to be burned? I don't know the full answer. People here have given you some ideas. You could also ask why does God let any of us die. Can't we just be immortal? And can't we go through life without any pain?

If you want to understand how Mormons think of your question, I suggest the following talk:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not

Edited August 10, 2016 by tesuji

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, EricE said:

Many LDS friends have tried to convince me that morality necessarily comes from a god. But is that the case?

Setting aside other religions and gods for the moment, the god of the Book of Mormon doesn't seem like the moral compass I should follow. For example, Alma 14:10-14 describes how god told Alma and Amulek not to save the wives and children of believers from being burned to death so "that the judgements which he shall exercise upon [the offenders] in his wrath may be just..."

It seems to be saying that god is directly displaying a preference for punishing those who harm the innocent, over saving the innocents in the first place. 

Wouldn't the moral action be just the opposite?

This discussion has evolved in a way that is a bit theoretical for my tastes; but speaking generally--I don't think God's ultimate view of morality or status as a moral Being derives primarily from His ability or willingness to alleviate human suffering in this life.  God's ultimately view of morality--and the reason we accept Him as moral--is because we accept three fundamental points at which Estradling has already hinted:  1)  That God created us, 2)  that God, while having no obligation to do so, subjected Himself to a great deal of misery in order to implement a plan that would maximize each individual's potential for happiness in the life to come; and 3) that mortal life is a short-term state that is necessary to effectuate the long-term aims of God's plan.

Speaking generally--not knowing exactly precisely how each vicissitude of life effects a particular individual's chances for eternal happiness, I simply can't definitively judge God as a moral being in any objective sense.  I can certainly speculate--as I will do below, re the slaughter of the believers in Ammonihah--but really, all I can do is to look at my own, individual experiences with God.  I see Him shaping my life, I see my own circumstances improving as I trust Him and act on what I think He is saying to me, and conclude that He is dealing justly with me; and then I take it on faith that He is also dealing justly with everyone else.  But as for everyone else--they will each have to judge God's morality on their own through that same process on an individual basis.

With regard to the martyrs in Ammonihah, there's a little more to Alma's explanation than what you have cited.  It's not just that God's laying the groundwork for the destruction of those who are persecuting the believers.  It's that "behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory".  In other words:  The plan is working.  The sufferings of the innocent now, will be consecrated for their joy in the ultimate consummation of God's plan.  And as for the perpetrators:  Whether they actually had the opportunity to perpetrate their horrors or not--they would have done them, given the chance.  So, they were already in such a severe state of rebellion that God simply couldn't offer them the same sort of reward that was available to the righteous.  All that is left is for God to ease their pain in any way He can--which in this particular case, seems to have included making sure that they would know exactly why they were losing that reward.  This may sound like cold comfort, but consider this real-life example:  as an attorney I have represented both parents who did understand why their kids were being taken away from them; and parents who did not understand it.  I can attest that the latter form of hell is far, far more excruciating. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[EricE]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You are most definitely not understanding....

If someone burns to death... it is a hard to understand and even impossible to understand if we think the guy died and it is over.  But if it is not over... if the guy's physical body dies but what he is does not then he had just gained an experience impossible to have any other way...   then if he is later resurrected then his is whole and sound with his experiences...  That is a net long term gain... at the cost of a short bit of suffering.  Thus the dental analogy I tried to use at the very first.

 

 

Yes, I understand the eternal perspective you are positing. But following that line of logic means that in your justification of allowing women and children to burn to death, you are agreeing with the passage's claim that the punishment of the offenders is more important than stopping the pain and suffering of believers.

I suppose that's the difference between me and this god. If I saw a child being burned to death and I had the power to stop it, I would.

[tesuji]

EricE,

You are trying to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, specifcially here the doctrines of Mormons - through reason alone.

The believing Mormons on this site are here because they have felt the witness of the Holy Spirit that this church is the church of God, re-established in modern times. This witness is a revelation from God. 

Revelation and human reason are two different ways to arrive at truth. In our religion, we say that revelation is foremost. Reason, scientific enquiry are great, but are secondary.

The first principle of our religion is faith in God. In other words, trusting in God. Do we trust in him blindly? No, we have the Holy Spirit telling us these things are true. We have past experience with God - when we obeyed and followed him, he blessed us.

Is God understandable to us? Not fully.

Quote

Isaiah 55:8 
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Can we learn things about him, and understand him partly. Yes, but maybe in the way an infant understands their parents. We believe in the future we will learn and grow to understand him more fully. But the primary way to do this is by obeying him - by analogy, by going to his class and doing his homework; by letting him teach us.

It seems like you are insisting on understanding God fully, right now. Mormons would say this is like an infant trying to understand where mom or dad go every morning to do their job, and insisting it's parents explain what they do at work. Will in the infant understand anything they say?

Why did God allow women and children to be burned? I don't know the full answer. People here have given you some ideas. You could also ask why does God let any of us die? Can't we just be immortal? And can't we go through life without any pain?

If you want to understand how Mormons think of your question, I suggest the following talk:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

EricE,

You are trying to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, specifcially here the doctrines of Mormons - through reason alone.

The believing Mormons on this site are here because they have felt the witness of the Holy Spirit that this church is the church of God, re-established in modern times. This witness is a revelation from God. 

Revelation and human reason are two different ways to arrive at truth. In our religion, we say that revelation is foremost. Reason, scientific enquiry are great, but are secondary.

The first principle of our religion is faith in God. In other words, trusting in God. Do we trust in him blindly? No, we have the Holy Spirit telling us these things are true. We have past experience with God - when we obeyed and followed him, he blessed us.

Is God understandable to us? Not fully.

Can we learn things about him, and understand him partly. Yes, but maybe in the way an infant understands their parents. We believe in the future we will learn and grow to understand him more fully. But the primary way to do this is by obeying him - by analogy, by going to his class and doing his homework; by letting him teach us.

It seems like you are insisting on understanding God fully, right now. Mormons would say this is like an infant trying to understand where mom or dad go every morning to do their job, and insisting it's parents explain what they do at work. Will in the infant understand anything they say?

Why did God allow women and children to be burned? I don't know the full answer. People here have given you some ideas. You could also ask why does God let any of us die? Can't we just be immortal? And can't we go through life without any pain?

If you want to understand how Mormons think of your question, I suggest the following talk:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not

Can we agree that one person's personal revelation is only hearsay to everyone else?

No matter which religion and/or god you believe in, there are more people who have and do believe in something else. And each claim to have personal revelation confirming the truth of their beliefs. Not all religions can be correct (they're too contradictory), but it is possible that all are false. Therefore we need to mechanism for determining which is true. Since personal revelation is demonstrably poor at determining what is true, we need to find something else. I'm open to suggestions.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, EricE said:

I suppose that's the difference between me and this god. If I saw a child being burned to death and I had the power to stop it, I would.

I'm not saying I know things like the below factor in--I don't--but before we speak in simple platitudes, consider:

What if that child's name is Adolf Hitler?

Again, I'm not saying that one of the victims of Ammonihah necessarily included a budding fascist.  But I am suggesting that there's far, far more to this calculus than the mere pathetic image of a suffering child. 

[EricE]

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

EricE,

You are trying to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, specifcially here the doctrines of Mormons - through reason alone.

The believing Mormons on this site are here because they have felt the witness of the Holy Spirit that this church is the church of God, re-established in modern times. This witness is a revelation from God. 

Revelation and human reason are two different ways to arrive at truth. In our religion, we say that revelation is foremost. Reason, scientific enquiry are great, but are secondary.

The first principle of our religion is faith in God. In other words, trusting in God. Do we trust in him blindly? No, we have the Holy Spirit telling us these things are true. We have past experience with God - when we obeyed and followed him, he blessed us.

Is God understandable to us? Not fully.

Can we learn things about him, and understand him partly. Yes, but maybe in the way an infant understands their parents. We believe in the future we will learn and grow to understand him more fully. But the primary way to do this is by obeying him - by analogy, by going to his class and doing his homework; by letting him teach us.

It seems like you are insisting on understanding God fully, right now. Mormons would say this is like an infant trying to understand where mom or dad go every morning to do their job, and insisting it's parents explain what they do at work. Will in the infant understand anything they say?

Why did God allow women and children to be burned? I don't know the full answer. People here have given you some ideas. You could also ask why does God let any of us die? Can't we just be immortal? And can't we go through life without any pain?

If you want to understand how Mormons think of your question, I suggest the following talk:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not

Can we agree that one person's personal revelation is only hearsay to everyone else?

No matter which religion and/or god you believe in, there are more people who have and do believe in something else. And each claim to have personal revelation confirming the truth of their beliefs. Not all religions can be correct (they're too contradictory), but it is possible that all are false. Therefore we need to mechanism for determining which is true. Since personal revelation is demonstrably poor at determining what is true, we need to find something else. I'm open to suggestions.

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This discussion has evolved in a way that is a bit theoretical for my tastes; but speaking generally--I don't think God's ultimate view of morality or status as a moral Being derives primarily from His ability or willingness to alleviate human suffering in this life.  God's ultimately view of morality--and the reason we accept Him as moral--is because we accept three fundamental points at which Estradling has already hinted:  1)  That God created us, 2)  that God, while having no obligation to do so, subjected Himself to a great deal of misery in order to implement a plan that would maximize each individual's potential for happiness in the life to come; and 3) that mortal life is a short-term state that is necessary to effectuate the long-term aims of God's plan.

With regard to the martyrs in Ammonihah, there's a little more to Alma's explanation than what you have cited.  it's not just that God's laying the groundwork for the destruction of those who are persecuting the believers.  It's that "behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory".  In other words:  The plan is working.  The sufferings of the innocent now, will be consecrated for their joy in the ultimate consummation of God's plan.  And as for the perpetrators:  Whether they actually had the opportunity to perpetrate their horrors or not--they would have done them, given the chance.  So, they were already in such a severe state of rebellion that God simply couldn't offer them the same sort of reward that was available to the righteous.  All that is left is for God to ease their pain in any way He can--which in this particular case, seems to have included making sure that they would know exactly why they were losing that reward.  This may sound like cold comfort, but consider this real-life example:  as an attorney I have represented both parents who did understand why their kids were being taken away from them; and parents who did not understand it.  I can attest that the latter form of hell is far, far more excruciating. 

On a more general level, though--not knowing exactly precisely how each vicissitude of life effects a particular individual's chances for eternal happiness, I simply can't definitively judge God as a moral being in any objective sense.  I can certainly speculate--as I have done in the preceding paragraph--but really, all I can do is to look at my own, individual experiences with God.  I see Him shaping my life, I see my own circumstances improving as I trust Him and act on what I think He is saying to me, and conclude that He is dealing justly with me; and then I take it on faith that He is also dealing justly with everyone else.  But as for everyone else--they will each have to judge God's morality on their own through that same process on an individual basis.

 

[estradling75]

17 minutes ago, EricE said:

Yes, I understand the eternal perspective you are positing. But following that line of logic means that in your justification of allowing women and children to burn to death, you are agreeing with the passage's claim that the punishment of the offenders is more important than stopping the pain and suffering of believers.

I suppose that's the difference between me and this god. If I saw a child being burned to death and I had the power to stop it, I would.

Ok you are God... you have a choice... you see a child being burned to death...  You know that if you do nothing that the child will suffer temporally but due to the experience, will in the life to come, use that experience to become someone who has maximum joy and happiness not only to themselves but also to others...  Or you can stop it and protect the child.  And in so doing they don't gain that experience and never become someone that has maximum joy and happiness.

What is the moral choice for you, as God, to make?

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by estradling75

[tesuji]

13 minutes ago, EricE said:

Can we agree that one person's personal revelation is only hearsay to everyone else?

No matter which religion and/or god you believe in, there are more people who have and do believe in something else. And each claim to have personal revelation confirming the truth of their beliefs. Not all religions can be correct (they're too contradictory), but it is possible that all are false. Therefore we need to mechanism for determining which is true. Since personal revelation is demonstrably poor at determining what is true, we need to find something else. I'm open to suggestions.

Certainly. The Mormon answer to this is ask God which religion or philosophy is correct. If God answers, then you know two things right away, 1) God does exist and 2) which path is correct. This is how our church started - a young boy going into a forest and asking God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

Mormons do not believe that God gives contradictory answers to people. We believe that other religions and philosophies have good in them, and people are responding to that goodness. I don't know what God tells other people. I can well imagine that he he might tell someone to be a devout Muslim, Buddhist, or secular human rights worker - those are steps on the path to living his full gospel.

Mormons assert that their church contains his full gospel, as taught by Jesus Christ, and God will confirm this if you seek the answer.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng

 

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by tesuji

[LeSellers]

32 minutes ago, EricE said:

so things are good because god does them. In that case, why do we not still judge the things god did as moral? For example, god specifically condoned slavery. In other stances, he condoned the mass genocide of entire populations because they were non-believers (or at other times just to prove a point, e.g. all the first-born Egyptians). 

Three things apply here:

1) You don't know the backstory. For much of it, we don't, either, but we have the background to put these things in a perspective that you cannot imagine.

2) Because you can't imagine the universal Fatherhood of God, you reject that He can and does allow or even actively do things that may advance our betterment, but which, from our PoV, seem immoral.

3) You don't understand covenants and the associated blessings for keeping them, nor the associated curses that follow on rejecting them.

I was an Officer Candidate in the Army. Much of what I went through was just plain harsh, and that's a mild description. But it was not to actually harm us candidates (although it did), it was to help us find our strength and dig deeply into ourselves to build on that undiscovered strength. Those who understood this principle graduated. Those who did not, dropped out. Someone who saw the "training" might think the Tac Officers were being immoral. But that does not mean they were being evil. In one case, a cycle before mine, a Tac Officer cut off a man's finger with a bayonet. It was part of the training — not cutting off the finger, but what he was doing when it happened.

We have, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a scripture that explains a bit why things are evil in this world, and why God allows them. Doc&Cov 122:7. After listing a few of the very hard things in life, God told Joseph "all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good." Just as in OCS, we learn by doing hard things, and we learn from our experiences. We learn from bad experiences more, probably, that from the comfortable things that happen to us.

Lehi

Edited August 10, 2016 by LeSellers