Mormonism and the problem of evil and suffering

[SeattleUte]

I think to dismiss the problem of evil and suffering by citing Mormonism's quasi-gnostic view of God shackled by universal laws only superficially treats the problem. In Mark E. Peterson's August 27, 1954 speech at BYU he unconconscioulsy surrendered to the problem of evil. Objectively the speech can be read as a backhanded surrender to the problem. As he goes on at length explaining, how could a merciful, fair God permit the Congo, Darfur, 1940's Europe, Bhopal, unless the seemingly innocent victims did something terrible in pre-Earth existence to deserve what they got?

http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/

As I get older I understand better what a real problem is the problem of evil and suffering.

[creekster]

I think to dismiss the problem of evil and suffering by citing Mormonism's quasi-gnostic view of God shackled by universal laws only superficially treats the problem. In Mark E. Peterson's August 27, 1954 speech at BYU he unconconscioulsy surrendered to the problem of evil. Objectively the speech can be read as a backhanded surrender to the problem. As he goes on at length explaining, how could a merciful, fair God permit the Congo, Darfur, 1940's Europe, Bhopal, unless the seemingly innocent victims did something terrible in pre-Earth existence to deserve what they got?

http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/

As I get older I understand better what a real problem is the problem of evil and suffering.

Why is it only superficial? Are you suggesting that when compared to the magnitude of suffereing in some instanes that this makes it superficial? I am missing your point, other than to see you find an excuse to post what you consider to be an embarrassing speech.

[pelagius]

I think to dismiss the problem of evil and suffering by citing Mormonism's quasi-gnostic view of God shackled by universal laws only superficially treats the problem. In Mark E. Peterson's August 27, 1954 speech at BYU he unconconscioulsy surrendered to the problem of evil. Objectively the speech can be read as a backhanded surrender to the problem. As he goes on at length explaining, how could a merciful, fair God permit the Congo, Darfur, 1940's Europe, Bhopal, unless the seemingly innocent victims did something terrible in pre-Earth existence to deserve what they got?

http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/

As I get older I understand better what a real problem is the problem of evil and suffering.

SU, I think this is a very worthy topic. It's one to grapple with but let's not load down such an important question with a talk like that. It just comes with too much baggage and stuff that is downright wrong. I read that article with sadness and with that backdrop I personally can't possibly discuss the problem of evil in Mormonsim using the talk as a springboard for the discussion.

[creekster]

SU, I think this is a very worthy topic. It's one to grapple with but lets not load down such an important question with a talk like that. It just comes with do much baggage and stuff that is downright wrong. I read the article with sadness and with that backdrop I personally can't possibly discuss the problem of evil in Mormonsim using the talk as a springboard for the discussion.

I concur.

[SeattleUte]

Why is it only superficial? Are you suggesting that when compared to the magnitude of suffereing in some instanes that this makes it superficial? I am missing your point, other than to see you find an excuse to post what you consider to be an embarrassing speech.

That I consider to be an embarrassing speach? What do you think about it. Actually, I think his speech is a beautiful example of someone flailing around trying to explain why there is evil and suffering and reconcile it with his theological view. (The theme I've identified isn't an aside. It's the heart of he speech.) If you adhere to his theology he's not being irrational, is he?

I think the problem of evil and suffering is hard if not impossible to reconcile with the Judeo-Christian God and what Austin Collie has taught us about the rewards of living righteously.

[SeattleUte]

SU, I think this is a very worthy topic. It's one to grapple with but let's not load down such an important question with a talk like that. It just comes with too much baggage and stuff that is downright wrong. I read that article with sadness and with that backdrop I personally can't possibly discuss the problem of evil in Mormonsim using the talk as a springboard for the discussion.

Mark E. Peterson's subject was the problem of evil. It may be the most in depth treatment I've seen of it in Mormonism. Show me another searching treatment of it. (I'm not saying there isn't one.)

[BigFatMeanie]

A brief skimming of my thoughts on the subject:

God has some power over evil but not absolute power over evil. In fact, evil must exist or there is no point or purpose in existence. Thus, while God can "manage" evil in specific cases or for a specific season, evil can never cease to fully exist otherwise God would cease to be God.

This is not official Mormon doctrine nor am I sure I fully believe this - it's just a thought I've been turning over in my brain. Another thought:

Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/The Father Of All Lies/whatever you want to call him is simply playing a role - he's doing "that which has been done in other worlds" (to use a well-known phrase). Just like Jesus is playing the role of Messiah/Savior. Also, in order to be truly evil one must have been truly good. That last thought really makes me go "hmmm".

Again, not saying I necessarily subscribe to these views 100% - they're just ideas I've been tossing around.

[pelagius]

Mark E. Peterson's subject was the problem of evil. It may be the most in depth treatment I've seen of it in Mormonism. Show me another searching treatment of it. (I'm not saying there isn't one.)

It's the one place where Mormons have gotten theological (SU, were you really ever a Mormon? ). From, at least the time of BH Roberts Mormons have proposed the following: a finite metaphysically constrained concept of God (this is reflected in BigFatMeanie post) as a solution or at least a partial solution to the problem of suffering (note the tradition of a finite metaphysically constrained God clearly predates BH Roberts in Mormonism but I believe he is the first to apply it the problem of suffering, someone can correct me if I am wrong).

The talk isn't useful for me. I don't like pre-mortal theodicies and we can clearly reject Peterson's pre-mortal theodicy. So I still don't think its a useful departure point for discussion.

[SeattleUte]

My theory: Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/The Father Of All Lies/Jesus/ Messiah/Savior/Jehova/God the Father are all the same. Evil and suffering are as intrinsic to human experience as breathing. God is not as simple as we were taught. I don't know what to make of that view or if it gives me any comfort at all. Pelagius, what am I? A gnostic atheist?

[pelagius]

My theory: Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/The Father Of All Lies/Jesus/ Messiah/Savior/Jehova/God the Father are all the same. Evil and suffering are as intrinsic to human experience as breathing. God is not as simple as we were taught. I don't know what to make of that view or if it gives me any comfort at all. Pelagius, what am I? A gnostic atheist?

I suppose in some sense because many gnostics believed the God of this world was evil. There is some correlation between your statement and the preceeding idea, but gnosticism is not an area I know a ton about and there are lots of versions of gnosticism so maybe there is an even closer mapping.

[BigFatMeanie]

My theory: Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/The Father Of All Lies/Jesus/ Messiah/Savior/Jehova/God the Father are all the same. Evil and suffering are as intrinsic to human experience as breathing. God is not as simple as we were taught. I don't know what to make of that view or if it gives me any comfort at all. Pelagius, what am I? A gnostic atheist?

Your theory and mine (actually I really don't like claiming it as my theory - it was just something I thought of, not something I espouse) aren't all that far off given my "you have to be truly good before you can be truly evil" concept.

[creekster]

My theory: Satan/Lucifer/The Devil/The Father Of All Lies/Jesus/ Messiah/Savior/Jehova/God the Father are all the same. Evil and suffering are as intrinsic to human experience as breathing. God is not as simple as we were taught. I don't know what to make of that view or if it gives me any comfort at all. Pelagius, what am I? A gnostic atheist?

Do you mean this is what you actually believe? Or do you mean this is how you can intellectually explain what you observe?

[SeattleUte]

Do you mean this is what you actually believe? Or do you mean this is how you can intellectually explain what you observe?

That is as close as I get to believing in the God of Judeo-Christianity. That's my take on the universe filtered through the prism of and employing the religions of my fathers. Note that my take is entirely compatible with evolution, which necessarily connotes suffering and premature death on a massive scale as part and parcel of the development of the species and ultimately humans.

[creekster]

That is as close as I get to believing in the God of Judeo-Christianity. That's my take on the universe filtered through the prism of and employing the religions of my fathers. Note that my take is entirely compatible with evolution, which necessarily connotes suffering and premature death on a massive scale as part and parcel of the development of the species and ultimately humans.

That is a very amusing and non-scientific view of evolution. Evolution has no such connotation. EVolution doens't exist outside of the process. It is simply a descritpoion fo the process.

IN any event, I take it you think that good and evil share a source? Is this a someone or somethign or is this simply a description of the nature of existence?

[BlueHair]

I explain suffering this way: Shit happens. It happens to everyone to some degree or another. Some people are able to rise above it and some people/societies allow it to become a way of life.

In the end, suffering is created by the mind. There is no suffering in the now. Suffering always takes place in the past or the future. Thinking about past situations or worrying about the future is the cause of all suffering. It's not God's job to allow or disallow suffering. We do it to ourselves.