The problem of evil in 1994 Rwanda (TW: genocide)

[MrShorty]

(cross-posted at mormondialogue.org I thought I would like to get this group's take on Mason's essay)

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

Quote

If there is a God, and that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world? A loving parent understands that a certain amount of pain and struggle is necessary for growth, but they still hate to see their children suffer needlessly. If I, as an imperfect father, saw one of my children inflicting serious harm on another—let alone trying to murder them—I would immediately intervene. No one would think I was a good parent if I said, “Let’s see what lessons can be learned from Child 1 hacking at Child 2 with a machete.” Gods can only be truly worthy of worship if they are morally and ethically superior to the best human you can possibly imagine. So if humans go to heroic lengths to stop needless suffering, why doesn’t God?

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

Quote

It rang hollow. What loving parent would allow—let alone stand by and watch—one child kill another? It seems even worse to do so simply to compile evidence about that child’s murderous disposition to be presented in a future court of law. Wouldn’t the loving parent intervene, not just for the sake of the victim but also so that the would-be perpetrator is prevented from committing such a morally ruinous act? It’s a fine line that parents walk, protecting their children versus allowing them to have hard experiences that promote growth. But responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe.

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

Quote

To affirm the resurrection is not to solve the problem of evil. It does not explain why God’s power seems so arbitrarily displayed in this life. Those who witnessed Jesus’s resurrected body were never provided rational explanations for his—or their—suffering. They were not offered understanding. Instead, they were given a witness. In the end, those who gazed on his body, who put their hands in his wounds, did not acquire understanding. Witness was enough. Good Friday only became “good” after Easter Sunday. To gaze uncompromisingly at Friday and still believe in Sunday is perhaps the greatest act of faith

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Quote

In Rwanda I sought understanding and gained in its place a witness. The God of Friday wants me to look. When I stare at his broken, bloodied body—in Jerusalem or Nyamata—I am convicted that this is not the world I want. I will tend to his wounds and accompany him to his grave. And then I will wait and watch and work. I will witness of the hope and rebirth that comes on Sunday. Not just that one Sunday so long ago, but every Sunday since and hereafter. Sunday neither erases nor explains Friday. What Sunday offers instead is hope that new life is possible and real.

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

[MrShorty]

 

Link to Wayfare's essay (it might be behind a subscription wall): https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda

Link to podcast episode: https://faithmatters.org/rediscovering-god-in-rwanda-a-conversation-with-patrick-mason/

[askandanswer]

I think that some of the difficulties caused by the question of evil stems from the idea that killing is wrong. And assuredly, killing is wrong, but I think it might not be a compelling example to illustrate the problem of evil. Time and time again we see the example of large-scale killings such as Rwanda or the Holocaust, being put forward as some kind of ethical/moral problem that doesn’t fit in with our knowledge/beliefs in other things. I don’t believe this is a helpful or accurate way to view death. Death is a necessary part of the Plan of Salvation, and that being the case, I’m not sure how much meaning or significance should be attached to the manner and timing of any particular death. There is a tendency to view death as an evil, or bad, or undesirable thing rather than a necessary step towards a positive outcome. Death is simply a transition, not an end, and the condition that death transitions us to is in so many ways better than the conditions it takes us from. Why should we think as evil an event that takes us to a better place? I think our perspective on the problem of evil could be changed if we viewed death as a necessary step rather than an evil. We know that death is not the end of life, it is simply the continuation of life in a different “place” and form. Sure, in many cases, death seperates us from our loved ones, but it also reunites us with a greater number of loved ones who have preceded us. Death limits our abilities to provide for the temporal needs of our loved ones, but it gives us increased opportunities to administer more and better to the eternal needs of a greater number of souls who died without the gospel. So, in short, I don’t see killing, whether done on a single scale or a wholesale scale, as a persuasive example of the problem of evil. And given our inability to make reliable judgements about the fairness/evil/justice of God and His plan based on the minutely short second act of a three act drama, I’m not even sure that there is a problem of evil or if anything useful can be said about it. I think the appearance of a problem may arise from a tendency to evaluate the goodness or badness of an action from our limited perspective of the here and now, with insufficient regard for the eternal consequences of an action, and this limited perspective makes it difficult to both see the problem clearly, and come up with reliable answers. I think the appearance of a problem arises from our tendency to judge certain acts as evil when in fact we are in no position to make such judgements, as our position, located in mortality, distorts our judgement.

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the interesting aspects about the issue of theodicy is that people who live lives of chronic suffering, pain, brutality, and loss seem not to grapple with it nearly so much as people who themselves are either thoroughly unacquainted with that kind of adversity (but are tormented by the thought that others experience it), or experience it as a change in circumstances to a life that overall has been quite comfortable.

A coworker who is better trained in philosophy than I has recently helped me to understand why Trinitarians are so obsessed with God’s sovereignty/all-powerful nature and the theoretical necessity of an Unmoved Mover.  But I don’t know that we LDS need to be quite so bashful about admitting that there are some things God can’t do.  There are some experiments/ simulations/ tests that will simply be ruined if the scientist intervenes in a particular way, or does it too often, or otherwise becomes predictable to the test subjects; and the scientist’s power and knowledge—while superior to anything the lab rats can comprehend—nevertheless can’t unilaterally change those principles.  

I’m not sure if any one person “needs” to experience atrocities.  But if we are to become exalted beings that are to create and govern worlds, then we must understand why *we*, as super-powerful divinities, must not act in a certain way towards our subjects; and thus I think we all “need” to experience a world in which atrocities are imaginable.  God, I think, can’t exalt us through a mortal probation where atrocities are impossible.  All He can do is show that He is willing to Himself undergo the very vilest, most horrifyingly excruciating experiences that such a fallen world has to offer.

Edited November 2, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

1) The "God who weeps" 
2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. 
3) "reconciliation village." 

4) Attack on Titan: Hange Death Scene - Hanji VS Rumbling Titans

 

For those who never watched the show, Hange (Angie) led a life of misery and blood and death just like the rest of the humans, finally dying against impossible odds.  Upon which she finds herself in a field with blue skies, greeted by all the people who had preceded her in death.  Beloved characters who had died in earlier seasons.  People who used to fight and hate each other.  And in a heartbeat, all the pain and suffering was a thing of the past.  Replaced by a better perspective about what really matters.

(I actually never watched the series, but my family did.  I came upstairs one evening to find them all sobbing over a cartoon, and they explained what happened.  I believe it's a worthy and valid #4.)

Edited November 3, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

The great blessing of Mormonism is that it explains the purpose of life.

In a nutshell we say that the purpose of life is for man to have joy.

We also say that this life is a test.

But what sort of test.

What follows is my Personal Belief on it and not Church teachings.

We are the children of God.  He is our Heavenly Father.  As such, we can be heirs to all that he has.  This includes being able to be Immortal Parents ourselves and to have almost limitless power.  However, how can it be known whether we would be responsible with this power.  How can it be known that we would still follow our Father and obey him when needed.

The test in this life isn't determined on whether we find the gospel or not in this life and choose to follow it.  There are millions who never had the chance to receive the gospel in this life.  Receiving the gospel and choosing to follow it with all our heart can be part of the test.  Having the gospel to guide us is absolutely a help in this life, but it is not necessary to find the gospel while in mortality.  That can be done in the Spirit world. 

It is necessary that there are those who volunteered in the pre-existence to do the work for those who do have the blessings to get the gospel and it's ordinances in this life, and that's what we, as members are doing.  However, this is no guarantee that we will pass the test.

The test is one of personality.  Are we naturally inclined to be someone who can be trusted to have the power of our Father.  It is our very personality that is being tested.  Can we be trusted or not?

Part of this is to allow us all, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, our free agency.  The only way for the test to really be unbiased is to let us run the show.  This is why the Church has leadership composed of men today, instead of us going to see Immortal Angels standing at the pulpit every time we go to conference, or Angels sitting in the place of the Bishop.  Would it be easier to have Angels and those who have been granted Eternal blessings in immortality on the stand?  Probably. 

It would also negate the test.  We need to have good and the evil in order for us to be able to make choices.  If we were all to know without a doubt, and know that if we were not good we would have consequences, then the test would be of no use.  It would be as if we went with the adversaries plan instead.  Sure, no one would be lost, but we also couldn't know the true nature of someone and if they could be trusted to have that eternal power.  Without the true test, none of us could be shown to be able to trusted as our true nature, that what we show when left to ourselves, would be known.

Evil exists, because we, as men, allow it to exists.  It exists because the Lord cannot interfere enough to stop it, because if he did, then we would know and that would invalidate the test.  We, not just as individuals, but collectively as a race, must be free to make our own choices, at least for this little while or period of time so that we are able to prove ourselves individually, no matter what we collectively may or may not be like. 

[CV75]

On 11/2/2024 at 2:24 PM, MrShorty said:

(cross-posted at mormondialogue.org I thought I would like to get this group's take on Mason's essay)

trigger warning: genocide -- specifically the Rwandan genocide of 1994 -- and some rather detailed descriptions of the memorials to those genocides. Be aware of your own tolerance for such things as you proceed.

Faith Matters' WayFare magazine recently published an essay by Patrick Mason where he shares some thoughts about a recent school sponsored trip he went on with some students to Rwanda where they apparently spent some time studying the '94 genocides. Additionally, he went onto the Faith Matters podcast and talks about the experience. It was a bit difficult to read and listen to him describe these events, but I was interested in how Mason processes the problem of evil in light of something so "satanic" (Mason's word to describe these events).

Mason describes the problem of evil this way:

As he grapples with this question as a believer, he eventually comes around to talking about LDS theodicies. In the above quote, he mentions the big problem I see with "soul growth" theodicies, in that some of the evil that God allows seems to be "too much" to simply be about seeing how what His children might learn from an interesting puzzle. In a later part of the essay, he addresses the "free will" theodicy. He mentions Alma 14 (where Alma and Amulek witness the unjust death by fire of many believers, but Alma claims that God doesn't want him to intervene), and says that:

As Mason wrestles with the question, "is it possible to believe in a loving, powerful God without making a mockery of Rwanda’s million dead?" he mentions three "lifelines:"

1) The "God who weeps" because God Himself condescended to come down to Earth and submit Himself to the unimaginable cruelty of the cross. "To Auschwitz, Rwanda, and all the world’s horrors, God does not offer full answers. Instead, he offers his broken body."

2) Faith that evil ultimately cannot win. That God redeems people out of their sin and suffering.

In the podcast episode more than the essay, Mason makes a particular point about this "witness" over "explanations."

3) The third "lifeline" Mason talks about came from his experience visiting a "reconciliation village." Apparently, the Rwandans are experimenting with these reconciliation villages where perpetrators and victims (and descendants) are given homes if they promised to live together in peace. Something about these people's ability to somehow reconcile gave Mason hope that the effects of evil are not permanent, no matter how "satanic" the evil.

I think I have mentioned before that some of the most compelling theodicies I've studied are those that emphasize human (Christian) action to prevent and alleviate suffering. Mason writes:

Perhaps the best reaction to the the problem of evil is to look inward to identify our own evil tendencies and root them out and do our part to alleviate suffering, prevent injustice, and do what we can to overcome evil. In some ways, I feel there is a risk that we might see ourselves as more loving and righteous than the God of the universe (and that's a problem), but I think there is value in doing what we can to help people where we can.

I still see no satisfactory answer or way to understand the problem of evil. I appreciated Mason's acknowledgment that satisfactory answers don't seem to be coming, but also appreciated his witness that God exists, and that God can redeem, and that we have power (however limited) to shape our world into something a little less evil.

Mortality is as much about allowing one child to kill another as it is about allowing One Child to save all of them.

What loving parent would limit the range of their children’s greatest potential by removing the risks and consequences of a down-side? Mortal parents haven’t power over life and death, but God does. He alleviates suffering on His scale, and we alleviate suffering on our scale. His scale requires the infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ (hence the extreme evil that we see, and even worse evil that we do not see). Our scale requires the sacrifice of our wherewithal, which He provides in the first place through His infinite and eternal sacrifice. Those who acknowledge where their resources for good parenting come from cannot find themselves “more loving and righteous than the God of the universe.”

Why is the witness that a good and just God exists, redeems us, and grants us power to embrace and share an expanding goodness in mortality and eternity not a satisfactory explanation of how/why He allows evil in the world?

Edited November 3, 2024 by CV75

[MrShorty]

I haven't had time to respond, but I will try to compose some responses today.

@askandanswer I think you are right that it can be important to consider the proper place of death in the plan of salvation. I worry, though, that too casual of an attitude towards death makes it seem like God doesn't care whether people live or die. One of our most contentious issues (especially in election years) is whether God cares about pre-born children living or dying and the circumstances of how they die (especially the mother choosing to end the pre-born child's life and why she might make that choice). I agree that death is not the worst form of evil, but something about our beliefs around the sanctity of life suggest that we strongly believe that God prefers us alive rather than dead.

I think it's also important to remember the other evils that exist. Genocide is usually accompanied by significant levels of hate and animosity. There is suffering and disaster. There is illness and disease. Estrangement from family and close friends. There are many facets to evil, and I think we ought to be careful not to minimize or become to casual about the different expressions of evil. "Being maimed or killed in a car crash is ultimately no big deal, so we don't need NTSB's, nor do we need to do research into building safer cars and/or safer highways." As I've studied different theodicies, one of the most compelling elements I find in a good theodicy is an expression of a desire to try (to the extent possible) to ameliorate or eliminate evil. It's a bit of a stretch, but I occasionally see a caution attached to soul growth theodicies, where our attitude could be, "I don't want to interfere with whatever lessons God wants to teach someone by the suffering they are going through, so I will stay my hand and not offer any support."

I think what I might be trying to say is that part of finding and recognizing the "proper" place of evil in this mortal experience is, as you say, not catastrophizing evil. I also think it is not about becoming complacent about evil. Somewhere in the middle is the proper place of evil where we can endure evil well, but still do all within our power to make the world better than we find it.

[MrShorty]

On 11/2/2024 at 5:45 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 But I don’t know that we LDS need to be quite so bashful about admitting that there are some things God can’t do.

I've seen someone say that this might be one of Joseph Smith's greatest contributions to the discussion around the problem of evil. This idea that God is not "omnipotent" (at least in the classical sense that traditional Christianity imagined omnipotent)*. The biggest problem I see with this idea is how it leads me to sometimes think of God as small and weak. "Our God is good for helping people find car keys, and plodding through routine, mundane work-a-day evils, but He is powerless against the worlds real problems, so you will understand why I don't actively bow down and worship Him." one might say. I think Mason mentions even talked about this kind of difficulty with a God who seems able to intervene in the small things in our life, but seemingly cannot intervene in bigger things (ignoring, for now, the central sacrifice of His Son that ultimately promises to redeem it all at some future time).

*BYU studies article that expounds on the idea https://magazine.byu.edu/article/joseph-smith-and-the-problem-of-evil/

[MrShorty]

@JohnsonJones Sometimes I end up with similar sentiments, maybe ultimately ending up in such a "deistic" place, where God cannot/will not intervene because He already pushed the "start" button and is allowing the universe to play out without further intervention. The difficulty that I still see is trying to reconcile why God seems to intervene in some big and small ways and not others. I recently was driving along one of our many, beautiful mountain highways, when I was suddenly face to face with another driver coming towards me in my lane trying to pass the semi that was on my left. I look back and see so many little coincidences that allowed me to avoid the head-on collision, but I've been around these mountain highways long enough to know that not everyone faced with the exact same scenario avoids the collision. Do I end up believing that God didn't really intervene in my case, and everything was just good luck? Or do I need some deeper theology to try to understand the seemingly capricious way that God intervenes? In Mason's essay, this seems starkest to me as he talks about the small ways his journal from the spring and summer of 1994 would claim that God was intervening in the life of a comfortable high school senior in Sandy Utah, while almost a million people in Rwanda were being slaughtered by their fellow countrymen.

I think your idea presents a solid question we might ask ourselves. How much do we really believe that God intervenes in the universe? Do we overstate the extent to which God intervenes?

[MrShorty]

On 11/3/2024 at 1:21 PM, CV75 said:

Why is the witness that a good and just God exists, redeems us, and grants us power to embrace and share an expanding goodness in mortality and eternity not a satisfactory explanation of how/why He allows evil in the world?

To quote Mason again, "responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe." Responsible parents do everything they can to stop siblings from brutally maiming each other. They don't sit by allowing one child to brutalize another while saying, "we're allowing this because we know an excellent doctor who will have no trouble healing all of these injuries." To quote Cluck from Disney's Chicken Little, "That's bad parenting, and I should know!"

In many ways, it is similar to the criticisms I've seen for the penal-substitution model of the atonement. God allows sin in the world, then, because He allowed sin in the world, He has to further require some ultimate sacrifice from His Son before he can redeem the sin that He allowed in the first place. Something about that does not sit comfortably.

 

 

[MrShorty]

to all. Thanks for your ideas. I want to add here that my consternations are not because I find all of these ideas without some merit. I just find, with Mason, that none of these ideas (alone or in some kind of aggregate) provides a satisfying explanation for the problem of evil. I'm confident that something about Christ's atonement allows God through Him to redeem all of the evils that come into the world. Some evils just seem so ...evil... that I find myself struggling to come to terms with them.

[askandanswer]

29 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think your idea presents a solid question we might ask ourselves. How much do we really believe that God intervenes in the universe? Do we overstate the extent to which God intervenes?

I think a much better question is what is it that will determines if God will intervene, and if so, what determines the nature of that intervention. In short, why does God do what He does in the way that He does? I believe that an algorithm can be worked out that could bring us closer to a semi-reliable answer than we are at present. 

[NeuroTypical]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

none of these ideas (alone or in some kind of aggregate) provides a satisfying explanation for the problem of evil.

Why is the attack on Titan explanation not satisfying?  I mean, did you see how quickly Angie internalized her new informed viewpoint?  How swift the life of grief and pain and misery and evil got put in it’s proper perspective?

[askandanswer]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In many ways, it is similar to the criticisms I've seen for the penal-substitution model of the atonement. God allows sin in the world, then, because He allowed sin in the world, He has to further require some ultimate sacrifice from His Son before he can redeem the sin that He allowed in the first place. Something about that does not sit comfortably.

I sometimes consider the possibility that the atonement is God’s way of fixing up a "problem"¹ that He is at least partially responsible for. While I haven’t arrived at a fixed conclusion on this question it is something I think about from time to time. To me, some aspects of the atonement don’t stack up, so I have learned to accept it on faith, which I tend to think of as a far more reliable basis than logic.  The stated need for an atonement suggests a surprising level of intolerance by God of normal human behaviour.

While a superficial glance appears to suggest that the primary purpose of the atonement is to enable forgiveness of sins, I think a more important purpose is to begin the process of sifting and shaping God’s children to prepare them to become as He. The information we have does not adequately explain why an atonement is necessary, or why there are not 50 other ways of overcoming the effects of sin or of meeting the demands of justice. For the atonement to be effectual in our lives requires submission to God’s will and I think that that is the primary intended outcome of the atonement – learning to submit to God’s will -  more so than being cleansed of sin. To paraphrase something that @Traveler sometimes says, if you really want to understand the motivations and intentions of something, look at its outcomes. The primary outcomes of the atonement are increased dependence on God, trust in God, and submission to His will. If we are to ever become like Him, I suspect that in order to be successful in that endeavour, the teaching and learning process will require enormous amounts of submission, trust and dependence. If we don't have the requisite degree of trust, submission and acceptance I think that will become an obstacle to our learning. And perhaps God cares more about our growth and learning and progression, and becoming like Him,  - all of which becomes more likely and possible because of the increased trust, submission and dependence that results from the atonement - than He does about the removal of a blemish caused by a menial sin.  

And that’s the first time I’ve ever said that out loud!  

1. Inverted commas because I'm not sure how much of a problem sin really is as compared to how much of a problem it has been made to become. 

[zil2]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I worry, though, that too casual of an attitude towards death makes it seem like God doesn't care whether people live or die. One of our most contentious issues (especially in election years) is whether God cares about pre-born children living or dying and the circumstances of how they die (especially the mother choosing to end the pre-born child's life and why she might make that choice). I agree that death is not the worst form of evil, but something about our beliefs around the sanctity of life suggest that we strongly believe that God prefers us alive rather than dead.

Or maybe, just maybe, God prefers that we not murder.  There is a difference:

Quote

Matthew 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

It's not for the sake of our "enemy" that we are commanded to do good for them (though they will hopefully benefit), rather, it is for our own progression along the path to becoming like God.  A murder victim is not halted in their path (certainly, being denied more mortality will not help them, but God will not punish them for the lack of time in mortality, but rather provide all necessary opportunities some other way).  A murderer on the other hand, may well have eternally halted their progress.

God values mortal life, but I think He values our eternal progression (spiritual life / the life of the soul) even more.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

a satisfying explanation for the problem of evil.

It is my personal opinion that there is no way to avoid / prevent evil.  That even God cannot abolish it from existence.

 

54 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

For the atonement to be effectual in our lives requires submission to God’s will and I think that that is the primary intended outcome of the atonement – learning to submit to God’s will -  more so than being cleansed of sin.

Perhaps these two things, "submit to God's will" and "cleansed from sin", are the exact same thing.

[askandanswer]

50 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Perhaps these two things, "submit to God's will" and "cleansed from sin", are the exact same thing.

I think that God wants us to be cleansed from sin, that is His will, but I think it is only one tiny part of what He wants from us, I suspect that His will towards us embraces far more than simply being cleansed from sin. 

[JohnsonJones]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To quote Mason again, "responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe." Responsible parents do everything they can to stop siblings from brutally maiming each other. They don't sit by allowing one child to brutalize another while saying, "we're allowing this because we know an excellent doctor who will have no trouble healing all of these injuries." To quote Cluck from Disney's Chicken Little, "That's bad parenting, and I should know!"

 

There is a point in a child's life that you have to stop interfering as much, or you become the abuser.  If you want your child to be able to be independent as an adult, you cannot try to keep them forever as a child.

One mistake I feel people make is the idea that when we say we are Children of our Father, that we mean that we are little children, such as you would find around the ages of 0-12.

I feel this is a fallacy.  We spent an eternity (or more) growing up already with our Heavenly Family.  This is us getting to be the age of adulthood.

When a child reaches adulthood, do you try to prevent them from buying a gun legally?  What would you do to prevent your 20 year old child from buying a gun.  Would you steal it from them and lock it in a safe?  If you stole it, would that not be a crime and an illegal action by you?

If you have two children that are murderously bent upon killing each other (which would be unfortunate), how would you stop them?  Do you get between a 19 and a 21 year old with your own weapon and threaten to kill them if they don't listen to you?  That itself is also a crime, and if you actually go through with it...well...

We are at the age of inheritance.  We are old enough that if we pass this test, we inherit. 

It would be as if you were the Owner of a very large, very rich, and powerful company.  You have children that are now adults.  Who do you give it to?  Do you give it to all of them?  What happens if they are frivolous and would just destroy the company?  What if they would use it for evil?  How do you decide which of your children should inherit, much less, control, the company?

You cannot treat adult children the same way you can little children.  It is a different dynamic.  They are individuals and as adults, have the freedom (in many societies) to make adult choices.  Bad parenting is to continue to try to force them to stay at  home and treat them like little children (in my opinion). 

You can still help them (for example, perhaps one is a little behind on their rent, or one needs tuition money, or perhaps one needs some advice, or perhaps one has lost their keys in your house and wants to find them so they can leave...etc).  However, there are some areas where trying to force them to do what you want would be seen as insulting, controlling, or even worse, abusive or criminal. 

You have to allow them to be able to make their own choices (plus, in many nations, legally you have to allow them to be able to make their own choices).  They have to grow up and they have to be able to stand on their own.  There comes a point where, as a parent, you cannot be that same protective force you were when they were little.  If they are to be successful adults, they need to be able to make their own choices, and to stand on their own without your interference.

If we are to truly be the heirs of our Father and gain all that he has, we too, must show that we are able to be responsible and worthy of that.

In some ways, his test is even better than what we go through in this life when we become adults.  We are guaranteed that, unless we absolutely reject him and fight against it, that we will once again at least have a place to reside.  We will have a degree of glory.  Nothing in this life, for the most part, as long as we accept his atonement, is permanent.  It's more like a simulation to show who we are, than the reality of what will come next.  If we show we are worthy in this temporary abode, we will gain a reward far greater in our permanent abode that is to come. 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, askandanswer said:

......

While a superficial glance appears to suggest that the primary purpose of the atonement is to enable forgiveness of sins, I think a more important purpose is to begin the process of sifting and shaping God’s children to prepare them to become as He. The information we have does not adequately explain why an atonement is necessary, or why there are not 50 other ways of overcoming the effects of sin or of meeting the demands of justice. For the atonement to be effectual in our lives requires submission to God’s will and I think that that is the primary intended outcome of the atonement – learning to submit to God’s will -  more so than being cleansed of sin. To paraphrase something that @Traveler sometimes says, if you really want to understand the motivations and intentions of something, look at its outcomes. The primary outcomes of the atonement are increased dependence on God, trust in God, and submission to His will. If we are to ever become like Him, I suspect that in order to be successful in that endeavour, the teaching and learning process will require enormous amounts of submission, trust and dependence. If we don't have the requisite degree of trust, submission and acceptance I think that will become an obstacle to our learning. And perhaps God cares more about our growth and learning and progression, and becoming like Him,  - all of which becomes more likely and possible because of the increased trust, submission and dependence that results from the atonement - than He does about the removal of a blemish caused by a menial sin.  

And that’s the first time I’ve ever said that out loud!  

1. Inverted commas because I'm not sure how much of a problem sin really is as compared to how much of a problem it has been made to become. 

I read and enjoy your posts.  If I ever get to Australia again – I ought to look you up.  I greatly appreciate your point of view.   For myself, I view everything through the lens of logic.  Even faith, I see as an exercise of logic.  For example, I find the teaching of Christ to be pure logic.  Having faith in Christ is the most logical approach to meaning of the universe’s existence I have encountered.

You are correct, I believe we learn a lot about methods from the outcome.  What is the outcome of G-d’s Plan of Salvation?  I believe it is the power for each individual to determine their own eternal destiny.  In our restored scripture this is known as “Agency”.  Thus, agency is not just a choice, but it is the power to make our choice our reality.

I see the atonement (kippur) as the most integral part of the Plan of Salvation.  The common denominators or our mortal existence is: To experience an physical body, experience death (of both kinds), experience a redemption from our corruption because of the fall and the resurrection.  I see the atonement as the means to make all this possible.  This process gives us the knowledge of the difference between good and evil – death being the outcome of evil and redemption and resurrection being the outcome of good.

With the knowledge of good and evil and having agency we are able to stand before G-d – being gifted the atonement by Christ make our chosen destiny the reality of our eternity.

 

One other thought – I personally find the notion of submitting to G-d’s will somewhat ambiguous.  How can we submit ourselves to G-d’s will without knowing for sure what G-d’s will is?  I was taught by my father that there are two elements of success.  The first is to learn discipline.  The second is to learn to love discipline more than the success that discipline brings.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To quote Mason again, "responsible parents keep the sharp knives out of reach and the guns locked in a safe." Responsible parents do everything they can to stop siblings from brutally maiming each other. They don't sit by allowing one child to brutalize another while saying, "we're allowing this because we know an excellent doctor who will have no trouble healing all of these injuries." To quote Cluck from Disney's Chicken Little, "That's bad parenting, and I should know!"

In many ways, it is similar to the criticisms I've seen for the penal-substitution model of the atonement. God allows sin in the world, then, because He allowed sin in the world, He has to further require some ultimate sacrifice from His Son before he can redeem the sin that He allowed in the first place. Something about that does not sit comfortably.

I agree; using your example of knives and guns as metaphors for the keys of immortality, God reserves them for those who are able to handle them, such as Nephi in Helaman 10. He exercises them for the blessing of everyone, including any suffering from the misuse of knives and guns. This is a good example of the relative scale I mentioned above. Lacking these keys, we can be good parents with the tools we possess while God is a Good Parent with His. We can look at this more and more granularly, and each step reveals a moment where the development of the child warrants an incremental change in access (greater or lesser) to the tools the good parent uses.

Even good parents bring the guns and knives into their home in the first place, temporarily leaving them exposed to abuse one way or another before locking them away from the children as they begin to meddle. Similarly, God brought the tools of the tree of life and the forbidden fruit into the Garden (both tools He uses regularly in His home for the benefit of His children), and then set up some rules and then of necessity the absolutely protective measure of the flaming sword once the children got into a place where they could do some real, existential damage.

I think any model of the atonement of Christ works if it leads to someone being more Christlike. We can share specific models, but they become individually filtered, understood and applied. Our personal models integrate and evolve as we move along (or away from) the covenant path. I lean toward a “work” model: Christ did all the work required in this world to overcome sin and death, and possesses the keys over them (or more positively framed, the keys over righteousness and eternal life). From this perspective, sin and death are not allowed after all, since “no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom.”

Models aside, why is the witness that a good and just God exists, redeems us, and grants us power to embrace and share an expanding goodness in mortality and eternity not a satisfactory explanation of how/why He allows evil (sin and death) temporarily in the world, when He a) did not allow the ultimate evil as described in Alma 42: 5, 13, and b) He ultimately uses the keys of righteousness and eternal life against them? 

[Anddenex]

This question surrounding the problem of evil I have never understood. I assume, its because of my upbringing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. The question, in my opinion, begins with the logical fallacy of unwarranted assumptions.

An example would be the statement provided by the OP quoting another member of the Church specifying, "If there is a God, and that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world?"

The question begins already with a false premise, that evil cannot exist with a God who is all-powerful and all-loving. This question also brings to light the finite mind pretending to know an infinite mind. This brings me to the Biblical quote from Isaiah where God instructs his children that his ways are higher than our ways. This competes the Telestial mind of the natural vs. the Celestial mind of a perfect being.

This question, in my opinion, falls under the same scrutiny -- as given by Atheists -- as the following argumentative constructs:

1. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God would have come up with a better plan that would not have allowed his "only" son to be killed! What parent, earthly parent, would give their son to die for others who do not care about their son?

2. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God surely would have devised a plan where all who did not believe in His Son wouldn't be doomed to an eternity of Hell. Surely there is a better way.

First, evil exists because we chose it. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what type of God -- malicious or benevolent. Evil exists because we chose it to exist.

Second, God has given us the antidote to overcome all evil in our lives, despite this knowledge, we still chose evil (confirming #1). A benevolent God has given us instruction on how to eradicate evil from our hearts and minds, and with that knowledge we would eradicate evil in our civilizations. There are 12 commandments God has given, if followed, there would be no evil in our lives:

1. The first two great commandments

2. The ten commandments which are under the first two.

Let's begin with the murder. If everyone on this earth simply kept that commandment imagine how different our world would be. Not hard for those who love God and love their fellowmen, but definitely hard for those who place "self" above all else (survival of the fittest). Not God's fault that his sons and daughter choose evil over good.

Next, chastity -- adultery and fornication, which brings up the old adage that we will live in a time where people will call good evil and evil good. The easiest example of this is fornication. If two people love each other, then there is nothing wrong with fornication -- it is a natural occurrence between men and women. Yet, God has made it clear that fornication is wrong and should only be kept between a husband and wife. We have people who call fornication "good" and calling fornication out -- evil. How many babies in the womb have been hushed due to fornication/adultery? God's fault? No, not even close, it is because humankind will call good evil and evil good. And thus chose evil.

I think what I have shared is sufficient.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Anddenex

[CV75]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:47 PM, Anddenex said:

This question surrounding the problem of evil I have never understood. I assume, its because of my upbringing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. The question, in my opinion, begins with the logical fallacy of unwarranted assumptions.

An example would be the statement provided by the OP quoting another member of the Church specifying, "If there is a God, and that God is both all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world?"

The question begins already with a false premise, that evil cannot exist with a God who is all-powerful and all-loving. This question also brings to light the finite mind pretending to know an infinite mind. This brings me to the Biblical quote from Isaiah where God instructs his children that his ways are higher than our ways. This competes the Telestial mind of the natural vs. the Celestial mind of a perfect being.

This question, in my opinion, falls under the same scrutiny -- as given by Atheists -- as the following argumentative constructs:

1. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God would have come up with a better plan that would not have allowed his "only" son to be killed! What parent, earthly parent, would give their son to die for others who do not care about their son?

2. If there is a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving then this God surely would have devised a plan where all who did not believe in His Son wouldn't be doomed to an eternity of Hell. Surely there is a better way.

First, evil exists because we chose it. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what type of God -- malicious or benevolent. Evil exists because we chose it to exist.

Second, God has given us the antidote to overcome all evil in our lives, despite this knowledge, we still chose evil (confirming #1). A benevolent God has given us instruction on how to eradicate evil from our hearts and minds, and with that knowledge we would eradicate evil in our civilizations. There are 12 commandments God has given, if followed, there would be no evil in our lives:

1. The first two great commandments

2. The ten commandments which are under the first two.

Let's begin with the murder. If everyone on this earth simply kept that commandment imagine how different our world would be. Not hard for those who love God and love their fellowmen, but definitely hard for those who place "self" above all else (survival of the fittest). Not God's fault that his sons and daughter choose evil over good.

Next, chastity -- adultery and fornication, which brings up the old adage that we will live in a time where people will call good evil and evil good. The easiest example of this is fornication. If two people love each other, then there is nothing wrong with fornication -- it is a natural occurrence between men and women. Yet, God has made it clear that fornication is wrong and should only be kept between a husband and wife. We have people who call fornication "good" and calling fornication out -- evil. How many babies in the womb have been hushed due to fornication/adultery? God's fault? No, not even close, it is because humankind will call good evil and evil good. And thus chose evil.

I think what I have shared is sufficient.

How does one disabuse themselves of a false premise when it is the only one they have, and haven't considered whether it is false or not?

[Anddenex]

On 11/16/2024 at 5:34 PM, CV75 said:

How does one disabuse themselves of a false premise when it is the only one they have, and haven't considered whether it is false or not?

That's a great question, and I can only speak from my experience and learning (also in light from reading your posts you are an intelligent person and already have points for this). I would specify the following principles to disabuse ourselves from false premises whether we have considered them or not:

* Always recognize any argument, especially when it strays into the realm of philosophies, can be wrong -- especially your own.
* Always keep an open mind
* In the gospel, I've tried never to put God in a box (e.g. God would never hurt/kill an innocent human -- then you read the Bible and quickly learn this isn't fully true)
* Keep the doctrine and its core principles (connected to modern day revelation) as the foundation by which all ideas, notions, scientific research, etc.. are judged
* Learn from the Spirit
* Learn the difference between "fact" and "assumptions" based on facts. This is part of the problem with members who use Church history as a means to walk away from the faith. Any time I listen to their arguments I see "assumptions" being presented as the -- only -- fact (first bullet point). I like to use this analogy as an easy example. Two men walk into a shed. In the shed, there is an axe with blood on it. One of the men says, "This axe killed someone." The other man says, "I'm not so sure, there could be other reasons for the blood." The first responds, "It's a lot of blood, it was used to kill someone. Prove me wrong. If you can't, I'm right!" By this time, the other says, "I can't prove you wrong." The other than says, "I'm right." This then brings us to another bullet point.
* Recognize any missing items to your argument. If I do not have all the details then I should be careful about any statement of actual facts -- because they will probably more likely be a statement of assumption -- creating a false premise.

I think that is a good list, would you add or remove from this list?

Edited November 18, 2024 by Anddenex

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

That's a great question, and I can only speak from my experience and learning (also in light from reading your posts you are an intelligent person and already have points for this). I would specify the following principles to disabuse ourselves from false premises whether we have considered them or not:

* Always recognize any argument, especially when it strays into the realm of philosophies, can be wrong -- especially your own.
* Always keep an open mind
* In the gospel, I've tried never to put God in a box (e.g. God would never hurt/kill an innocent human -- then you read the Bible and quickly learn this isn't fully true)
* Keep the doctrine and its core principles (connected to modern day revelation) as the foundation by which all ideas, notions, scientific research, etc.. are judged
* Learn from the Spirit
* Learn the difference between "fact" and "assumptions" based on facts. This is part of the problem with members who use Church history as a means to walk away from the faith. Any time I listen to their arguments I see "assumptions" being presented as the -- only -- fact (first bullet point). I like to use this analogy as an easy example. Two men walk into a shed. In the shed, there is an axe with blood on it. One of the men says, "This axe killed someone." The other man says, "I'm not so sure, there could be other reasons for the blood." The first responds, "It's a lot of blood, it was used to kill someone. Prove me wrong. If you can't, I'm right!" By this time, the other says, "I can't prove you wrong." The other than says, "I'm right." This then brings us to another bullet point.
* Recognize any missing items to your argument. If I do not have all the details then I should be careful about any statement of actual facts -- because they will probably more likely be a statement of assumption -- creating a false premise.

I thin that is a good list, would you add or remove from this list?

When I first asked the question, I was thinking of those born into circumstances that keep them in ignorance of the restored gospel, and must wait until the next life to discover it. As long as they act on the light they are given, they will be all the more prepared. Joseph Smith said, "It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

But then I thought that Joseph's observation also applies to those who have exposure to the restored gospel but struggle with opposition in understanding and accepting it. Today in Sunday School, the teacher pointed out Ether 4:7 - 15. One of the comments on how to adopt true principles was to overcome unbelief in Christ and His teachings with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. This made me think that we choose to believe in Christ and the gospel doctrine (which is often pointed out), but in order to get to that point, we need to have a mind to imagine or consider what it would be like to believe in Him, and then choose to do so.

Those who need to wait to hear and those who struggle with hearing in these times when the restoration is presented to them will need to go through those steps. As long as either acts on the light they are given, they will be able to disabuse themselves of their false premise(s) by considering what life would be like applying the gospel premise, and then choose to believe and exercise faith accordingly. I think all this can be summed up with "humility" which, I think you covered in your list!