The nature of evil and God’spossible involvement in its creation

[askandanswer]

 

This questions occurred to me while reading the post by curious_mormon about who tempted Satan.

Is there any such thing as absolute evil, or does evil only exist in relation to God’s will? If God has no particular will or preference for how many angels can be allowed to dance on the head of a pin, then perhaps it is no evil if 1 or 1000 angels dance on the head of a pin. However, if God suddenly decides and declares that only 2 angels may dance on the head of a pin then all of a sudden it becomes evil for any other number of angels, other than two, to dance on the head of a pin. Is there any evil in relation to matters on which God has no particular will? By having a will on a particular matter, is it only at that point that the possibility of evil in relation to that matter comes into existence? Taking things a step further, if this is true – that the possibility of evil comes into existence only once God has stated His will on a particular matter – then I guess it would also be true to say that that evil does not become a reality, or no evil is actually committed, until God’s will on that particular matter is violated.

If this is true, and I’m inclined to think that there is reason to believe that it may be, then by creating the possibility of evil, and by giving, or allowing us the opportunity to choose and act, then this might point to the (for me) unexpected conclusion that God has been intimately involved in the creation of evil. This does not in any way detract from the fact that we are all individually responsible for any evil choices we make. (And I would never presume that any one on this forum would ever make such choices)  

[anatess2]

Evil is the absence of God.  Everything else is just bad choices versus good choices.  God, of course,  is the perfection of good choices.  Where God is, there is no evil.

Edited October 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Edspringer]

What I believe about the subject is that intelligence and agency co-exist with God. Intelligences can act for themselves according to the laws instituted by God (D&C 93:30). The exercise of agency leads one to take part in the law or act contrary to it. So, in this perspective, those intelligences that acted in opposition to God’s designs did it for themselves, according to their own will and knowledge. These became the sons of perdition and, since opposition is an eternal principle for the proper exercise of agency, God allowed Lucifer and his followers to tempt mankind. This is how I see things.

[Rob Osborn]

God is not a part of creating evil. God only creates good and it is up to his creations to then choose also to be good. The higher argument to this topic is if it is true God knows all things before they happen or only know all things that are possible to be known due to free will. If one argues God truly does know all things then yes God truly does create evil. But, by doing so it creates a paradox in that God doesnt truly just do good. My belief is that God knows only that which can be known and peoples decisions to choose to do good or evil isn't predestined in them which would nullify true free will..

I do believe it is possible to create children in a system where all choose to be good. The actual presence of evil isnt required to bring about good.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Rob Osborn

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 If one argues God truly does know all things then yes God truly does create evil. But, by doing so it creates a paradox in that God doesnt truly just do good. My belief is that God knows only that which can be known and peoples decisions to choose to do good or evil isn't predestined in them which would nullify true free will..

 

Rob, could you elaborate on this please? I don't think I follow your logic here and I can't see how you get from how God knowing something then leads to the creation of evil.

I agree with you that peoples' decisions to choose to do good or evil is not predestined and that if this were the case it would impact on free will.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Is there any such thing as absolute evil, or does evil only exist in relation to God’s will?...

At the moment I'm leaning toward believing that there is no such thing as absolute evil (like the dark side of the force or like a self-existent being from whom evil originates). And yet I feel comfortable claiming that there are causes and effects that are intrinsically evil. As I understand things neither good nor evil originated with God. They are eternal realities, if that makes any sense. 

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Evil is the absence of God.  Everything else is just bad choices versus good choices.  God, of course,  is the perfection of good choices.  Where God is, there is no evil.

Tess, could you elaborate on this please, I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly do you mean by the absence of God? I believe that in some way, the power or influence of God is everywhere, and if that is true, ie, that God's influence was everywhere, and if it is true that evil is the absence of God, then there would be no evil, when clearly, there is. I'm finding it a little difficult to imagine a time or place where God's power and influence could not be. However, if you are talking about the actual physical presence of God, and if evil is defined as acting in opposition to God's will, well we know that Lucifer, in the presence of God in the preexistence, chose to oppose God's will, and not just Lucifer, but one third of God's spirit children. So on that occasion, there were a great many acts of evil done in the presence of God.

[askandanswer]

4 hours ago, Edspringer said:

What I believe about the subject is that intelligence and agency co-exist with God.

I agree

Intelligences can act for themselves according to the laws instituted by God (D&C 93:30).

I agree

The exercise of agency leads one to take part in the law or act contrary to it.

I agree

So, in this perspective, those intelligences that acted in opposition to God’s designs did it for themselves, according to their own will and knowledge.

I agree

These became the sons of perdition and, since opposition is an eternal principle for the proper exercise of agency, God allowed Lucifer and his followers to tempt mankind. This is how I see things.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one, although I'm aware of Lehi's teachings on this subject. I believe that we can exercise our agency in the absence of opposition, eg, I can choose between pink candy floss or green candy floss, but I admit that this is unlikely to be the kind of choice that promotes our eternal growth and I acknowledge that to exercise agency in a manner that does promote growth, that is, choosing between good and evil, possibly does require the presence of some kind of opposition, and that this may therefore be termed a "proper" use of agency, but at the same time, there is nothing improper about choosing pink fairy floss over green. ( On rereading - this after posting -  I've just realised what a poorly constructed sentence this is in that its too long and should have been broken down into several sentences, but I'm too lazy today to reconstruct it).

God allowed Lucifer and his followers to tempt mankind. This is how I see things.

This is certainly how things are now, but for this argument to hold true, there would need to have been some other being/influence providing opposition prior to the existence of Lucifer. If it is true that opposition is an eternal principle, then it must have existed prior to the existence of Lucifer, and that gets us right back to the question that curious_mormon first raised about who/what tempted Lucifer to rebel against God in the preexistence. Until now I had gone along with the answer that I think Tess and others proposed, that is, that no one tempted Lucifer, and that he was just acting on his own natural desires. However, its not easy for me to reconcile this approach with the idea that opposition is an eternal principle and a requirement for the proper exercise of agency. Who/what was the opposition that influenced Lucifer's agency to act against God? 

Ed, I'm hoping you might be willing to share your thoughts on what evil actually is.

This is a side issue, but one's that I've just been reminded while reading Ed's reply, of a topic that my son and I have discussed once or twice before. If opposition is necessary for the proper exercise of agency, and if learning how to properly exercise our agency is one of the main reasons why we are here, and since Lucifer and his associates are doing such a fine job in providing the required opposition, does it then follow that Lucifer deserves some kind of reward in the next life for doing such a good job of providing something that is essential to our growth? And if it was not actually Lucifer providing that opposition, then it would have to be someone else, because opposition is necessary to the proper operation of the plan. My son sometimes postulates that Lucifer is some sort of sacrificial "fall guy" for God's plan, and thinks that when everything is over, God will pat Satan on the back and say well done, you did a good job in what you were supposed to do. This possibility is given a small degree of support by the fact that Lucifer will indeed be given a kingdom to reign over, and the same cannot be said of those who end up in the telestial or terrestrial worlds, although I imagine that the kingdom over which Lucifer will reign will not be a terribly desirable kingdom to have.

Edited October 25, 2016 by askandanswer

[askandanswer]

37 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

At the moment I'm leaning toward believing that there is no such thing as absolute evil (like the dark side of the force or like a self-existent being from whom evil originates). And yet I feel comfortable claiming that there are causes and effects that are intrinsically evil. As I understand things neither good nor evil originated with God. They are eternal realities, if that makes any sense. 

We differ, starscoper, in that I am moving towards the conclusion that good and evil can only be defined in relation to the existence of God's will. To act according to God's will is good, and there is no other kind of good, to act against it is evil, and there is no other kind of evil, and on issues where God has not declared His will, eg, whether pink candy floss is better than green, then there is no good or no evil (and as a side thought, therefor no eternal benefits or spiritual growth to be gained by consistently choosing one colour over the other). 

 If evil is an eternal reality, wouldn't that then suggest that there might be such a thing as absolute evil?

[Rob Osborn]

55 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Rob, could you elaborate on this please? I don't think I follow your logic here and I can't see how you get from how God knowing something then leads to the creation of evil.

I agree with you that peoples' decisions to choose to do good or evil is not predestined and that if this were the case it would impact on free will.

Some people argue that God knows absolutely everything that will ever happen, even the very finest of details. If this is true then before God created Lucifer he knew already every little detail that would be in place leading to his fall at the precise time. It would mean that God placed into being the known causes that would exactly cause him to fall. Thus, by default, God can do nothing other than create Lucifer to become satan knowing fully beforehand he woukd have to first give him truth and power so that he could then fall. Paradoxly though for God, he himself has no free will because he can only do exactly what the future he knows holds, of which, he knows perfectly beforehand. So, under this theory, God has no free will to either create or destroy any situation that may effect the eternity that could not be changed. 

That is why I reject the idea God knows everything. He only knows that which is possible to know. He may have a myriad of wisdom about possible outcomes and he can sway outcomes towards prophecy through his interactions, but he must have "choice" and choice can only exist if the future isnt known.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

We differ, starscoper, in that I am moving towards the conclusion that good and evil can only be defined in relation to the existence of God's will. To act according to God's will is good, and there is no other kind of good, to act against it is evil, and there is no other kind of evil, and on issues where God has not declared His will, eg, whether pink candy floss is better than green, then there is no good or no evil (and as a side thought, therefor no eternal benefits or spiritual growth to be gained by consistently choosing one colour over the other). 

 If evil is an eternal reality, wouldn't that then suggest that there might be such a thing as absolute evil?

I'm prepared to agree with you as far as I (as a child of God) can choose between good and evil. I don't remember being introduced to any reality outside of God's will insofar as I've been taught. So what you say makes sense to me. 

However, I'm grappling with your question and its ramifications because if the LDS doctrine and the couplet (as man is God once was) are true, doesn't it necessarily follow that there was evil for (God before he became God) to reject?

Edited October 25, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[askandanswer]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Some people argue that God knows absolutely everything that will ever happen, even the very finest of details. If this is true then before God created Lucifer he knew already every little detail that would be in place leading to his fall at the precise time. It would mean that God placed into being the known causes that would exactly cause him to fall. Thus, by default, God can do nothing other than create Lucifer to become satan knowing fully beforehand he woukd have to first give him truth and power so that he could then fall. Paradoxly though for God, he himself has no free will because he can only do exactly what the future he knows holds, of which, he knows perfectly beforehand. So, under this theory, God has no free will to either create or destroy any situation that may effect the eternity that could not be changed. 

That is why I reject the idea God knows everything. He only knows that which is possible to know. He may have a myriad of wisdom about possible outcomes and he can sway outcomes towards prophecy through his interactions, but he must have "choice" and choice can only exist if the future isnt known.

Thanks Rob. This seems to be a version of the argument that foreknowledge implies predestination. I have sometimes looked at these arguments and have found them to be difficult to follow and as yet, I don't have a firm view on them either way. However, it seems to me that if complete knowledge of everything that will happen means that one can only choose and do that which will bring about that which one knows will happen, I can still readily imagine that God, when deciding and planning out what the future would be, had a very wide range of choices to choose from. However, once having exercised that choice, yes, I can see how His range of future choices would then be more limited than what they were previous to deciding what the future would be. I also think its possible for God to know about and plan and prepare for a number of possible futures, and if there are multiple possible futures, I think that would then open up the possibility of choice. ( I must admit that my thinking on this last mentioned possibility is still a little under-developed).

As to the idea that God created Lucifer knowing what he would become, I've just finished writing about that possibility in the last paragraph of my edited reply to Ed. The last paragraph of my reply to Ed was not included in my original reply so you might not have seen it yet. 

[askandanswer]

35 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

I'm prepared to agree with you as far as I (as a child of God) can choose between good and evil. I don't remember being introduced to any reality outside of God's will insofar as I've been taught. So what you say makes sense to me. 

However, I'm grappling with your question and its ramifications because if the LDS doctrine and the couplet (as man is God once was) are true, doesn't it necessarily follow that there was evil for (God before he became God) to reject?

Certainly, and possibly, evil for the mortal version of that Being who is now our God, was based on the presence or absence of the will of that being who was His god. Perhaps evil can only be defined in terms of the will of a Ggod, regardless of which particular Ggod we are talking about. I suspect that our God became God in the same way that you and I can - by choosing good over evil, with good and evil being defined by the being to which He was subject at the time. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Certainly, and possibly, evil for the mortal version of that Being who is now our God, was based on the presence or absence of the will of that being who was His god. Perhaps evil can only be defined in terms of the will of a Ggod, regardless of which particular Ggod we are talking about. I suspect that our God became God in the same way that you and I can - by choosing good over evil, with good and evil being defined by the being to which He was subject at the time. 

Well, "Askandanswer", we may have run out of things to talk about, hahaha. Because I think you're right. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[askandanswer]

11 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

Well, "askandanswer"  we may have run out of things to talk about, hahaha. Because I think you're right. 

I'm hoping that there will be much more to explore and consider from the input of others to this discussion and hopefully more contributions from yourself in response to the contributions from others.

[Guest]

@askandanswer Let's re-visit your assertion (with which I agreed) that good and evil are defined by the Being to which one is subject. Should we therefore agree that it's reasonable to presume that every such Being defines good and evil the same way?

[askandanswer]

I think there is scope for the defining Being to exercise some individual preferences. Perfection and Godhood does not imply that all perfected beings are the same and one of the areas in which they could differ is in their likes and dislikes. Such likes and dislikes may well play a part in influencing their will and in determining what they choose to define as good and evil. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think there is scope for the defining Being to exercise some individual preferences. Perfection and Godhood does not imply that all perfected beings are the same and one of the areas in which they could differ is in their likes and dislikes. Such likes and dislikes may well play a part in influencing their will and in determining what they choose to define as good and evil. 

I'm having difficulty with that because I don't see how that which is (disliked if you choose) and therefore evil according to the will of my Heavenly Father could be liked and therefore good to my Heavenly Father's Father. Can you provide me with a reason to warrant this being a possibility?

[askandanswer]

6 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

I'm having difficulty with that because I don't see how that which is (disliked if you choose) and therefore evil according to the will of my Heavenly Father could be liked and therefore good to my Heavenly Father's Father. Can you provide me with a reason to warrant this being a possibility?

I'm sure there are many parents in this world, certainly both my wife and I are such parents, and possibly you are as well, who have not completely and automatically applied to their children all the rules to which they were subject to by their parents when they were children. And it does not necessarily follow, from this variation, that some parents are better than others. My parents might have had a rule that when approaching a steep cliff, that I not go closer than two feet. They had this rule because they loved me so much and cared so much for me, and any violation of that rule might have led to unpleasant consequences. But perhaps I want my children to experience the growth that can come from facing danger and overcoming fear, so my rule might be not to let my children get closer than six inches.  

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I'm sure there are many parents in this world, certainly both my wife and I are such parents, and possibly you are as well, who have not completely and automatically applied to their children all the rules to which they were subject to by their parents when they were children. And it does not necessarily follow, from this variation, that some parents are better than others. My parents might have had a rule that when approaching a steep cliff, that I not go closer than two feet. They had this rule because they loved me so much and cared so much for me, and any violation of that rule might have led to unpleasant consequences. But perhaps I want my children to experience the growth that can come from facing danger and overcoming fear, so my rule might be not to let my children get closer than six inches.  

You seem to suggest that we may understand God by the examples of mortals--who are only subject to the same single Father. Even the differing conditions in which we may find ourselves raising our children are the result of God's will. Therefore, I'm thinking that the set of all our different approaches as mortal parents to raising our children is irrelevant to the fact that there is no room for our differing approaches (likes and dislikes) in relation to God our Father's will and what is ultimately good or evil.

Would you consider the following? As mortals that which is evil is that which God wills against. However, for God, an Eternal Being, evil is that which is and eternally has been evil. You and I as mortals cannot comprehend (at this stage in our progression) all evil nor all good for that matter. We must needs rely upon God's will or we must go against His will in order to know good and evil. Becoming and ultimately being (a) God is conformity to eternal truth, i.e. eternal good and it's opposite. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[askandanswer]

8 minutes ago, UT.starscoper said:

You seem to suggest that we may understand God by the examples of mortals--who are only subject to the same single Father. Even the differing conditions in which we may find ourselves raising our children are the result of God's will. Therefore, I'm thinking that our different approaches as mortal parents to raising our children is irrelevant to the fact that there is no room for our differing approaches (likes and dislikes) in relation to God our Father's will and what is ultimately good or evil.

Would you consider the following? As mortals that which is evil is that which God wills against. However, for God, an Eternal Being, evil is that which is and eternally has been evil. You and I as mortals cannot comprehend (at this stage in our progression) all evil nor all good for that matter. We must needs rely upon God's will or we must go against His will in order to know good and evil. Becoming and ultimately being (a) God is conformity to eternal truth, i.e. eternal good and it's opposite. 

I don't fully understand your first paragraph, perhaps you could rephrase it or illustrate it with some examples?

I would accept that which is evil is that which is against God's will. But I see no compelling reason to believe that there is a form of evil which is and eternally has been evil. (Perhaps because I haven't properly understood your first paragraph.) However, I also accept that as mortals, there is some possibility, even likelihood, that there are things that we cannot comprehend, and the true nature of good and evil could be included in that class of things which we cannot fully comprehend at this time. 

My views are modifying as I think about and write further about this so what I say here is not consistent with the paragraph above. 

I acknowledge that there appears to be certain laws to which even God is subject, eg, in Alma it suggests that God must be just, or else He would cease to be God. I suspect there are other examples. (Where they come from and why they exist, is not something I can say anything about.) Consequently, violation of these laws, which appear to exist independently of God's will, would probably constitute a form of evil. So yes, there may well be some form of absolute good and evil to which all Ggods are subject to. I suspect that these laws, these types of good and evil, would have something to do with the promotion/enhancement/advancement/progression of lesser beings such as ourselves (good) or the capture/control/diminution/destruction of such beings (evil). I suspect that all Ggods are involved in the same endeavour, but I also suspect that there is still scope for each Ggod to exercise their own preferences,in how Tthey choose to define good and evil in the realms for which they are responsible, so long as Tthey adhere to the greater laws to which Tthey are subject. It is the violation of these greater laws that may be what constitutes absolute evil. 

[Guest]

@askandanswer In an effort to explain my first paragraph, I understood you to offer an analogy comparing [two generations of mortal parents choosing to raise their offspring based upon differing circumstances and likes or dislikes] with what you hypothesized may be two generations of Gods choosing what to allow or disallow as good or evil based upon differing likes or dislikes. I felt uncomfortable with an analogy that appeared to me to indicate that if mortals behave thus and so, then it's reasonable to presume Gods behave similarly. If the intent of the analogy was as I perceived it, then I didn't see that the behavior of mortals ought to be useful for hypothesizing the behavior of Gods.

Quote

I would accept that which is evil is that which is against God's will. But I see no compelling reason to believe that there is a form of evil which is and eternally has been evil. ... However, I also accept that as mortals, there is some possibility, even likelihood, that there are things that we cannot comprehend, and the true nature of good and evil could be included in that class of things which we cannot fully comprehend at this time.

You and I are probably not far apart from each other on this. I'm not sure if I can, at the moment, provide a compelling reason. I suppose that I look at it from the back side, so to speak meaning I identify causes and effects I perceive as purely evil (such as tormenting and torturing innocent defenseless creatures), and I conclude such must be members of the set of all evil. To draw my own analogy I consider the 5,000 or so stars that are visible with the naked eye and I conclude that they are members of the set of all stars both visible and invisible or as yet undetected. I suppose that the evil you and I are prohibited against in our puny mortal sphere must be just about all we're capable of comprehending, and perhaps only a God can comprehend the greater set of all evil (as God indicated to Abraham that a mortal cannot comprehend all the stars in the Universe). Likewise, there may be knowledge of evil that Satan possesses which is not only merely prohibited to mortals but beyond their ability to comprehend--the injunctions we read in the Book of Mormon against making in-depth knowledge of secret combinations may by analogy again be a mere scratch on the surface by comparison. 

Quote

My views are modifying as I think about and write further about this so what I say here is not consistent with the paragraph above.

As are my views, as well. 

Quote

So yes, there may well be some form of absolute good and evil to which all Ggods are subject to. I suspect that these laws, these types of good and evil, would have something to do with the promotion/enhancement/advancement/progression of lesser beings such as ourselves (good) or the capture/control/diminution/destruction of such beings (evil). ...

Thank you for this example. I was thinking similarly. I cannot at the moment fathom a circumstance wherein it could ever be called good to delight in tormenting an innocent defenseless creature for a thousand years and thereby derive a self-satisfying pleasure lusting in every moment for the full term. This example may be overly dramatic, but I wonder that only a devil could truly be capable whereas even if a mortal attempted or thought himself filled with sufficient hatred, he would break down from the horror of it, or else it would destroy him in the process. I've endured claims of such hatred from some sources, but I'm skeptical that a human could truly take on such a diabolical characteristic (Hitler's or Pol Pot's ilk notwithstanding since even they turned their backs in most cases and the suffering they inflicted killed the victims in comparative short order)--again because this sphere is temporal and not eternal.

(This conversation has been immensely interesting, as I think you predicted it would be.)

Edited October 26, 2016 by UT.starscoper

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Thanks Rob. This seems to be a version of the argument that foreknowledge implies predestination. I have sometimes looked at these arguments and have found them to be difficult to follow and as yet, I don't have a firm view on them either way. However, it seems to me that if complete knowledge of everything that will happen means that one can only choose and do that which will bring about that which one knows will happen, I can still readily imagine that God, when deciding and planning out what the future would be, had a very wide range of choices to choose from. However, once having exercised that choice, yes, I can see how His range of future choices would then be more limited than what they were previous to deciding what the future would be. I also think its possible for God to know about and plan and prepare for a number of possible futures, and if there are multiple possible futures, I think that would then open up the possibility of choice. ( I must admit that my thinking on this last mentioned possibility is still a little under-developed).

As to the idea that God created Lucifer knowing what he would become, I've just finished writing about that possibility in the last paragraph of my edited reply to Ed. The last paragraph of my reply to Ed was not included in my original reply so you might not have seen it yet. 

I have given the subject tremendous thought and my own conclusion I feel comfortable giving is that opposition in the form of an evil person doesnt have to exist for the plan to work. The plan laid out in heaven was in place before Lucifer fell. It was a given that man would fall and a Savior would be needed. This evidence was already apparant before Lucifer fell. When lucifer fell and became Satan it says he knew not the mind of God. It meant that Satan tried to alter or change the plan to thwart God and take his power. 

My firm belief is that our particular situation on this earth with the conditions as they exist is unique in the eternities. We have a different battle with a whole lot more at stake than what normally takes place amongst the Gods because of the great conspiracy that Satan was running in heaven and continues with here on earth.

My belief, and I feel very confident in it, is that myriads of worlds came and went, myriads of generations if Gods came to pass without much if a hiccup and then came Lucifer, a spirit of high power and authority in heaven second only to Christ, who used strategy and conspiracy in the courts of heaven to overthrow the kingdom. He was found out, his secrets God countered with his own, which then laid the foundation of our particular earth where the great test would take place and victor takes all in the end. So much being at stake, God took his best most valiant spirits and sent them here to earth to ensure the kingdom of the devil would be destroyed. Satan has all his chips on the table now playing out on this particular earth.

In one sense, we are living out a scenerio here on earth that has perhaps never come about in the eternities. God allows Satan because, after all, Satan did establish his kingdom on the principle of free will. I would bet that because of the situation here, our experience is unique in the history of eternity. God will destroy Satan and all his works in the end. What will that mean? It probably means that another situation like this will possibly never arise again because all of the secret plans of Satan will be destroyed and the children of the Gods will no longer learn evilness in heaven to ever again make war with God. To me this means that new provisions will be put in place that will prevent the scenerio of Lucifer ever happening all over again in eternity. God doesnt have to have evilness to fulfill his plans. But, since we have it now, God uses it for his own good to better preoare his elect to destroy Satan and all his works.

[askandanswer]

I haven't thought of it like this before.

[askandanswer]

8 hours ago, UT.starscoper said:

@askandanswer In an effort to explain my first paragraph, I understood you to offer an analogy comparing [two generations of mortal parents choosing to raise their offspring based upon differing circumstances and likes or dislikes] with what you hypothesized may be two generations of Gods choosing what to allow or disallow as good or evil based upon differing likes or dislikes. I felt uncomfortable with an analogy that appeared to me to indicate that if mortals behave thus and so, then it's reasonable to presume Gods behave similarly. If the intent of the analogy was as I perceived it, then I didn't see that the behavior of mortals ought to be useful for hypothesizing the behavior of Gods.

 

I think the following scriptures give support to the idea:

(New Testament | John 8:38)

38  I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

 

 (New Testament | John 5:19)

19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

(New Testament | Revelation 1:6)

 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.  Amen.

 And from the King Follette discourse:

Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to theresurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.