Agency explains moral evil, and moral evil may explain the more vexing problem of natural evil. Were there no earthquakes or illnesses to threaten even the most powerful and wealthy and seemingly secure of us, burgeoning moral evil might exceed in its effects all the natural evil we encounter. It is possible that the balance of evil in the world (taking into account both moral and natural evil) is minimized because God permits natural evil to be part of the full equation of our mortal life and, thus, compels all of us to keep one eye on Heaven.

Preservation of agency requires that natural evils be, in some measure, randomly distributed. Were they a perfect reflection of our moral choices, we would probably live our lives more like Skinner’s trained pigeons than like moral agents. Good rain (and evil hail) must fall on both the righteous and the wicked to yield an optimal mix of effects that humble all wise human beings, no matter what their current state of well being and apparent carnal security may be.

Finally, great wealth (which most people view as being good) seems to curse a family more than it blesses them. I believe it is harder to raise a family of devoted Mormon Christians in the United States on a $1,000,000 a year income than on $30,000 a year. In other places, it is easier to raise a family of devoted Church members on $2,000 a year than it is on $1,000,000 here. So who is blessed and who is cursed by their birth circumstances, given that knowing Christ and receiving the atonement is the purpose of this life?

At a minimum, our judgments of “good” and “evil” are often misplaced. As Isaiah observed, we frequently judge good to be evil and evil to be good. That complicates our efforts to develop an adequate theodicy. Our first error may be that we often misjudge what needs to be explained. Why are some poor spirits subjected to the almost morally insurmountable temptations of great wealth while others are blessed by poverty that humbles them and brings them to God?

jader3rd, if God is truly our father and will be doing this forever, then yes, there must be evil he experiences and deals with constantly. That’s why I like the early Hebrew accounts with God battling the waters of chaos. Creation is not a one time event, such as in traditional orthodox Christianity. Rather it is an ongoing process that must continually be repeated. Further creation intrinsically is battling against evil.

James, I think that fundamentally the issue isn’t why there is suffering. I think that problem can easily be dealt with. I think the issue is why there is this level of suffering so unevenly distributed. Especially when it seems clear God can act.

Christian, I think the problem of salvation isn’t much of a problem for Mormons. There’s the spirit world before the resurrection/judgment when everyone will be given a chance to accept or reject with vicarious ordinances. So you just don’t have the issue that afflicts so much of traditional Christianity where accepting Christ is necessary for salvation but so few seem to have a real chance before death.

Trey, from a Mormon perspective the burning confirmation of the Holy Ghost is only the first step. So I think it is often the same as what others experience. While it can burn away our sinful nature, in many ways that needs to be repeated. We all sin and need to repent. That process of repenting by accepting God’s grace to change ourselves is an ongoing process through our life. I think that’s the big divide between many Evangelicals and Mormons is that we see it as a process while they see it as an event. My problem with the Event idea is that of course we all at times return to our fallen natures. The Holy Ghost will sanctify us, but we have to open ourselves up to receive what’s already outpouring.

i made a recent Facebook post that perhaps Heaven is “reversiland”. Perhaps some of the things we see as good here on Earth are actually, in God’s eyes, evil and many things we see as evil are, in God’s eyes, good.

For was the start of mortal existence not this whole knowledge of good and evil as sin? God clearly is about paradox, first shall be last and all that. Perhaps even the Holocaust here on Earth is the restoration of Israel in Heaven?

Given that God lives, and lives outside of time and space, the order of entry into His presence may be non-linear. Perhaps I, and others receive the baptism of fire in His time, as He knows, in the fullness of time, that we are members of His Church.

Even now, as I received a limited temple recommend from my Bishop yesterday, I prepare to go to the Temple to baptize my son, of whom I posted a few days ago here, by proxy. But I am as certain as I can be that my son does not now languish in the spirit world, for he lived and died as a saint, and I have even seen a dream/vision, on the verge of wakefulness, of him as he appears now, in heaven.

For what appears as evil now, cannot be evil eternally as there is no evil eternally?

But similar testimony is also born by those outside the Church. One particularly popular testimony on Youtube, by a woman named Crystal Clay, is also similar in the details, but she testifies of never even being water baptized first.

There is also a similar testimony by Todd White, who is increasingly popular as a speaker in the evangelical world, and clearly not an LDS member.

It also seems that one of the Central themes in this is death…..non believers see it as finality,we see it as a ‘graduation ‘ but there is a problem between life and the journey to death…..

It is said that the typical Mormon answer to the logical problem of evil is a finitist theodicy with a lean toward an intimate weeping interventionist parent-figure God.

But then to answer the soteriologocal problem (how can there be so many without the presence of God, without the gospel, without saving ordinances) it seems that the tendency is to expand our image of God to one acting out of time and place, or rather in a frame that includes but is not encompassed by the time and place concerns of mortality (where we typically focus all the evils in question). Not so intimate, not so interventionist, more universal. A bigger God in a sense, but one not so satisfying as the answer to the logical problem?

And then to address the existential problem (how do we trust in God) it seems that we make a greater move, changing definitions, stepping up to a meta question, appealing to experience over logic, all of which feels like further abstracting “God” to the point that it is almost like talking Brahman instead of Vishnu. A different class or category. And then I wonder whether that God is satisfying as the answer to the logical problem?

At that point, I’m sometimes tempted to give up on the universe in the same way that others are tempted to give up on God. The response to this is of course that I can’t.

I lost my son at age 14 to a brain tumor. From my perspective, at the time, this was evil. From the perspective of heaven, perhaps it was good. My son never knew death, no friend or relative of his ever died in his lifetime. He walked into heaven absolutely fearless, because he knew that God is very, very good. He knew there were two possibilities in his life, that God would miraculously heal him or that God would take him to heaven, sooner rather than later. He gave the choice to God, and lived, for three years, much longer than expected, with that testimony, by the Holy Spirit.

So was his death good or evil? He certainly accomplished a lot during his short life, arguably achieving his unique eternal purpose, bringing many, many, other people much closer to God, especially his father.

All things work for good to those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose.

Between at least two narratives, and also “The Black Swan” by Tallib, I have come to view this universe not as deterministic, but probabilistic. Things happen seemingly at random, but only because this universe is vast, with so many parts/participants, collisions are not jusr possible, but highly probable.

What better environment to allow your children to “grow up” in than this, where the tests of character aren’t just in your choices/actions, but how you react and bounce back. i personally don’t see God as a helicopter parent, hovering around protectively, but rather the parent who allows you to experience the universe, then reaches out to help you get back up, provides comfort, and helps you learn from your experience.

I realize this view may also be seen as too simplistic, but my own experience has reaffirmed this view to me, and worked to inctease and mature my faith. God bless y’all.

Mark, while one might put the example Nate gave as a language issue, one should be able to easily formulate the question so it’s not just a language problem. I’m not sure evil becomes defined by whom we blame for one. Certainly if one is to adopt the language game approach one could argue some do that. But do all? I’m very skeptical. To put it in more Rorty terms, could Rorty raise the question of whether someone was acting justly or not? If so, can’t the same approach be used with God? And if not, then isn’t that a language problem of how we treat God? i.e. we may be falling prey to the type of game Anselm plays with negative theology rather than the game Mormons play with God as a divine human.

Nontrovert, I agree the holocaust was only worse in the sense it was (at that time) the country considered the most enlightened in terms of science and philosophy and was done in a particularly technological manner. Yet in kind rather the disturbing efficiency were other genocides not as bad? Probably. However that doesn’t avoid the central question of why God doesn’t act in those cases. So to me you make the problem worse rather than better.

Great news!