16

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id61.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id59.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="7"><U><B>7</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="13"><U><B>13</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="14"><U><B>14</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="15"><U><B>15</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>16</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="17"><U><B>17</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="18"><U><B>18</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="APPENDIX"><U><B>APPENDIX</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 1: CONCLUSION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ABBREVIATIONS"><U><B>ABBREVIATIONS</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 148-188. MORMONISM: Section 1, Chapter 16. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <U>CHAPTER 16</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>God and the Problem of Evil God and the Problem of Evil </B></div> <bR> <div>      The existence of evil is the strongest argument of  atheism and is called “Positive Atheism.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT> Any theistic belief that logically resolves the reality of evil with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God shatters any logical consistency atheism  may have. In other words, <B>atheism loses its only real logical argument against the existence of God if a religious faith can demonstrate logically that the existence of evil </B> <B>can co-exist with the existence of an all-good all-powerful God.</B> This study will demonstrate that Mormonism is the  only faith that can logically resolve this issue.</div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     The  relationship of God with evil is called theodicy.</FONT>2<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > This is the most problematic aspect of theistic belief and is the  main reason certain people disbelieve the existence of God,</FONT>3<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > since the problem of evil is very serious for those who've been conditioned into believing God is  omnipotent and  all-good.</FONT>4 </div> <div>      Theodicy is divided into different portions, the theoretical portion and the existential portion. The theoretical portion “concerns the logical and epistemic relations which hold among certain propositions about God and evil.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT> It itself is divided into different sections, the logical (about the alleged inconsistency of certain claims about God and about evil) and the evidential (the theoretical difficulty of whether God exists given the existence of evil).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> The existential portion isn't the abstract idea about God and evil but is about our mortal experience. Witnessing and experiencing evil makes us ask why a loving, merciful, and all-powerful God allows such suffering and misery.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Why do bad things happen to good people?</B></div> <bR> <div>      Perhaps the greatest advantage of Mormon theology is it's the only satisfactory way to resolve the dilemma of God and evil  since  Traditional Theism can't resolve it.</div> <div>      The traditional theistic view of God is he's an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. The Mormon view of God is he's an  omniscient,  omnibenevolent being who isn't  ontologically omnipresent or  omnipotent in the classical sense.</div> <div>       The classical understanding of omnipotence is  “the ability to do<I> anything.”</I> This is a very troublesome presumption since it is vulnerable to nonlogical traps (e.g., “Can God make a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it?”). This is why the definition of omnipotence is usually modified to mean “ the ability to do anything <I>except the nonlogical</I>.” Even this definition doesn't seem adequate. Can God save an unrepentant sinner? No (Ezek  18:4,20). Can he lie and break his word? No (Heb  6:18). Can he remember forgiven sins? No (Isa  43:25; Jer  31:34; Heb  8:12;  10:17; D&C  58:42). Can he deny himself? No (2 Tim  2:13). Therefore, he isn't omnipotent in the sense of being able to do everything except the nonlogical since there aren't any logical reasons why he can't do these things. </div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     Why would an  omnipotent God allow death and sin to exist? Why, after the sin started occurring, did he not simply forgive all of us? Why didn't he just perfect the world and make the universe sin-free? Why would he send his Son Jesus Christ to Earth to suffer in a horrendous manner? Why was Christ's Atonement necessary? Why doesn't God just forgive us instead of supplying a Savior? Why would he require faith (defined as belief without hard evidence)? What good does it do? Why does an o mnipotent, omnibenevolent God create misery and pain?</FONT>7 <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >If God is truly omnipotent these questions are difficult. </FONT></div> <div>      The advantage of the “Mormon God” is that it avoids the problem of evil that the traditional view can't resolve: </div> <bR> <div> 1) The traditional God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-good) and  omniscient (all-knowing).</div> <div> 2) There are no nonlogical limits to what he can do.</div> <div> 3) He is completely good. He thus desires to prevent all the evil he can if good always eliminates all the evil it can.</div> <bR> <div>      Therefore no evil exists.</div> <bR> <div>      But evil <I>does</I> exist.</div> <bR> <div>      Consequently, God is either not all-good or not all-powerful since an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being eliminates every evil it can properly remove.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >8</FONT> </div> <bR> <div>      God (or anyone else) can't be  all-good and  holy while at the same time allow evil to continue to exist <I>if</I> he can destroy it at any time, unless the evil accomplishes a greater good or interference results in greater evil.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >9</FONT></div> <div>      Another way of describing this problem is:<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >10</FONT></div> <bR> <div> 1) If God is omnipotent, he <I>could</I> prevent evil <I>if he wished</I>.</div> <div> 2) If God is omnibenevolent, he would<I> desire </I>to prevent evil from existing.</div> <div> 3) If God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there then “exists a being who <I>could</I> prevent evil if he <I>wanted to </I>and who would <I>want to</I> prevent evil if he <I>could</I>.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >11</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      If these statements are true, why is there so much evil? He <I>could</I> prevent all pain and suffering, but <I>chooses</I> not to. He <I>could </I>have prevented the Fall. He <I>could</I> have prevented the Holocaust.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >12</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Compare these two logical structures with the Mormon position:</div> <bR> <div> 1) The Mormon God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing.</div> <div> 2) He can utilize all available power. </div> <div> 3) He is completely good. He thus desires to prevent all the evil he can.</div> <div>  (a) Evil <I>still</I> exists because it is an eternal principle and God can't completely eliminate it, because <I>no power anywhere can completely eliminate evil.</I></div> <div>  (b) All who experience evil agreed to have it prior to coming to earth in exchange for a perceived greater good.</div> <div>  (c) Moral evil occurs due to the uncreated nature of man. It isn't created by God.</div> <bR> <div> Consequently, God maintains being all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing <I>despite</I> evil exists.</div> <bR> <div>      Mormon theology allows evil to co-exist with an all-good all-powerful God whereas the God of  Traditional Theism is completely responsible for all suffering, because he could prevent it but chooses not to. He is responsible for all moral evil because he created the nature of all moral agents and the universe that allows them to perpetuate. </div> <div>      If we assume that God is omnipotent and created everything in the universe  <I>ex nihilo</I> (out of nothing), everything that exists is thus “contingent” upon his will.  Now, in this setting, let's postulate some evil act, X.  Let's assume that X occurred because some person willed it to. Why do the conditions exist that would allow the exercise of that will? Why does the person even have a will? Indeed why does the person exist at all? The answer is always God. Belief in Original Sin and predestination,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >13</FONT> causes the problem to become even more acute. God is then patently responsible for the prosperity of evil. He chooses to pass the stain of sin onto each individual, corrupting them. He chooses to redeem a few and condemn the many. </div> <bR> <div>   “Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >14</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Picture yourself walking down the street in a seedy part of town. You turn a corner and down a narrow side alley there is a man with a gun pointed at a young pregnant woman. She is on her knees begging for mercy and the life of her baby. The gunman is facing away from you and doesn't see you. At your feet is a large metal bar. You are larger than the gunman and you could <I>easily</I> pick up the bar and club the gunman into unconsciousness before he knows what hit him. You <I>know</I> this. The woman's eyes plead with you to save her, but you decide this just isn't your problem, even though you know you could prevent the crime. Your decision is to just watch and see what happens. The gunman shoots the woman in the stomach, killing her baby and letting her slowly bleed to death. He then runs away. You have caused no evil directly. Do you bear any responsibility? Definitely! The evil only exists because of <I>your choice</I>. Were it not for your choice, the evil would not exist. This is the same position an omnipotent God is in. <I>He has the power to prevent evil. Any allowance causes him to become an evil God</I> since the sins of omission (sins due to inaction) are just as serious as the sins of commission (sins due to action).</div> <div>      Picture yourself walking along a different street and you see a man punching his child with his fists. The child is screaming, begging his father to stop but he continues to beat the child. You are much bigger than the man and can easily stop him from beating his son. You know this. The child is screaming to you, begging your help but you decide not to get involved and just watch as the father beats his child to death. Are you responsible for the <I>continuance</I> of the evil and eventual death of this child? Most assuredly. The evil would never have <I>continued</I> were it not for your choice.<I> Your choice</I> caused the evil to continue and get worse. This is the same position an omnipotent God is in. <I>He has the power to prevent evil to continue and degenerate. Any allowance causes him to become an evil God.</I></div> <div>      If God is totally holy and  good (Lev  11:44-45; Deut  32:4; 1 Sam 2:2; Ps  33:5;  99:4-9; Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8; 15:4) he must have an eternal hatred against sin and must do his best to eliminate it. Why then does sin exist?</div> <bR> <div> <B>The theological explanations of evil </B></div> <bR> <div>      There are many different theological theodicies but there are only four that holds prominence:</div> <bR> <div>      (1) The Deterministic view. </div> <div>      (2) The Free-will view.</div> <div>      (3) The Soul-Making view.</div> <div>      (4) The Mormon view.</div> <bR> <div>      #1) <B>The Deterministic view</B> is the view that's been followed the longest and stretches back thousands of years. It basically says everything is due to God's will and the existence of evil is a mystery we can't explain. Evil happens because it is “God's will.” We don't know <I>why</I> evil and sin exist but whatever the reason, it doesn't negate the fact God is all-good and he is all-powerful. Because Determinism  is intellectually unsatisfying (e.g., it makes God an evil God), it has fallen out of favor in  most of the Christian churches but is still followed by some groups.</div> <div>      #2) <B>The</B> <B>Free-will view </B>is the tenet most religious groups espouse today. It is intellectually superior to the Deterministic view and makes God a more righteous and consistent God. It basically says evil  exists because of free will. God  doesn't force us to be righteous but gives us the freedom to choose right or wrong. Evil exists as  an opposing force against good, for us to choose between good and evil. The occurrence of evil is due to humans using their free agency in an unrighteous manner. Despite the superficial appearance of this theodicy app ears valid, it contains serious logical problems that cause atheists to reject it (see below). Proponents of this view are continually refining it in an attempt to satisfactorily resolve its flaws.</div> <div>      #3) <B>The Soul Making view</B> basically means earth is a place to make souls. We need obstacles and struggles. We need to learn from our mistakes. The importance of creating souls outweighs the combined moral and physical evil. This theodicy contains serious logical flaws which makes it ineffective against atheism such as the existence of moral evil that doesn't result in the victims becoming more holy (e.g., the torture and murder of an infant or child, suffering immediately followed by death) and the existence of tremendous moral evil (e.g., mass murder and genocide).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >15</FONT></div> <div>      #4) <B>The Mormon view</B> hasn't been articulated clearly in the past, especially to outsiders, but more and more non-LDS thinkers are appreciating its importance and effectiveness in resolving the dilemma of evil. It is a fresh perspective of the problem of God and evil and  doesn't accept any of the assumptions of the other theodicies without question but examines the validity of each point. It overhauls the entire problem and creates a workable framework that  preserves God being all-good and all-powerful that co-exists with the reality of evil. It avoids the dependent problems by  rejecting <I>ex nihilo</I> creation and the blameworthy problems of  undeserved evil. It basically says God is not responsible for our failures because he didn't create our natures and  respects our free-will, he is  unable to eliminate Evil (the violation of Good) as a principle because it is eternal, we  chose the circumstances of our lives and  are here to be tried and tested to become like God which makes evil and hardship <I>necessary</I> for progression. </div> <bR> <div>      There are other less-familiar theodicies but they all suffer fatal logical flaws that make them unable to refute atheism:</div> <bR> <div>      #5) <B>The Finite God view.</B> This views God as a being who isn't all-powerful. It goes far beyond the Mormon view of God's power and describes a being who has so many limitations that he can't even be considered a “God” in any real sense.</div> <div>      #6)<B> The Best of All Possible Worlds view </B>basically says this evil, sinful world is the best God could put us in. It places severe limitations on God's power that causes most Christians to reject it.</div> <div>      #7) <B>The Original Sin view</B> claims evil, pain and suffering exist because of Adam and Eve's offense. A significant problem with this view is the fact evil, pain and suffering existed prior to the appearance of humans in the animal world and in the heavenly rebellion of Satan and 1/3 of the angels.</div> <div>      #8) <B>The</B> <B>Ultimate Harmony view</B> says what we view as evil is not really evil in God's eyes. There is great difficulty with this view because if evil isn't really evil in God's eyes, any effort on our part to do good and eliminate evil is actually inconsequential in God's view. This entails moral fatalism.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >16</FONT> The Holocaust wasn't really evil. If this is true, God isn't worthy of our worship and to be our moral guide.  “Why should we worship or follow the commands of a being who doesn't think the Holocaust evil?”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >17</FONT> What good did the Holocaust do that outweighed its evil?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >18</FONT></div> <div>      #9) <B>The</B> <B>Degree of Desirability of a Conscious State view</B> claims evil exists because God doesn't have a moral obligation to improve the world and increase man's potential of experiencing the qualities of pleasure, satisfaction and happiness.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >19</FONT> This view assumes God doesn't experience satisfaction and pleasure and makes an indifferent God.</div> <div>      #10) <B>The</B> <B>Reincarnation view</B> claims all victims deserve their suffering because of past misdeeds (Karma). This view leads to fatalism and can't answer what started the evil. It also causes normal animal behavior [e.g., carnivores] to be guilty of moral evil.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >20</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This work identifies all the points of the Mormon view and will demonstrate Mormonism resolves the greatest problem of theistic belief.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The  generic idea of God: </B></div> <bR> <div>      Mormonism agrees with the seven major features of the generic idea of God:<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >21</FONT></div> <bR> <div> #1.  Alone worthy of worship, ultimate concern, unconditional commitment. (Nothing imperfect can be called and worshiped as “God” and it is only “God” who deserves complete devotion.)</div> <div> #2.  The Holy Power; the nonderivative, supreme, most effective power. (“God” isn't a group of ideals. He didn't evolve into “God” during this universe but was always God during all periods of the existence of our universe. There isn't any power or being more powerful than him anywhere in the universe.)</div> <div> #3.  The purposive creator of our world. (God created the world for a purpose. Nothing random, purposeless or aimless can be called “God.”)</div> <div> #4. Perfectly good. (God is holy and righteous. He doesn't have any evil purposes or impulses. He isn't morally neutral or indifferent in accordance with our understanding of how a “God” should be righteous.)</div> <div> #5.  The source of norms. (God is the source of our moral standards of distinguishing good from evil especially the right and wrong uses of power by humans. Moral and ethical behavior and usages of power are due to God setting the standards to follow. God doesn't sanction “might makes right”[having power by itself doesn't give the right for dominance of others.])</div> <div> #6.  The ultimate guarantee for the meaningfulness of human life. (God's reality means there is a reason for the existence of humans. Nothing that affirms or supports nihilism [and denies the ultimate meaningfulness of human life] can be called “God.”)</div> <div> #7.  The trustworthy ground for hope in the ultimate victory of good over evil. (Good will ultimately triumph over evil due to God. He is the only object we can place our hope in for salvation. Nothing that is unable to overcome evil can be called “God.”)</div> <bR> <div>      These generic concepts of God perfectly mesh with the unique features of Mormon cosmology showing the logical coherency of Mormon thought.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The uniqueness of Mormon Cosmology </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>1) God </B></div> <bR> <div> - God  isn't omnipotent in the classical sense. He is limited by our free-will, eternal laws and the law of causality of the universe.</div> <div> - He is  unable to create or destroy man's intelligence, the seat of self or monad that our spirits/souls are built around.</div> <div> - He is  unable to remove the consequences of sin. Punishment is always due for any broken law. He  <I>needed</I> to furnish a substitute to satisfy the requirements of a broken law. Jesus<I> </I> <I>needed</I> to perform the Atonement or else all would be subject to direct punishment ( Law of Justice) instead of getting salvation with Jesus  assuming the punishment for our sins ( Law of Mercy). </div> <div> - He isn't bound to create the best possible world for us (with the least pain and evil), merely one that enables us to be tried and tested.</div> <bR> <div> <B>2) Man </B>               </div> <bR> <div> - Our  intelligence,  our central being and nature,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >22</FONT> are  co-eternal with God,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >23</FONT> existing prior to the creation of the universe. He “organized” our spirits around this  self-existent,  self-aware<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >24 </FONT>intelligence similar to a pearl is built around a grain of sand. We  aren't created <I>ex nihilo.</I></div> <div> - Our intelligence, our “monad” is in an irreducible simple state, which can be built upon (“clothing” it with spirit bodies, clothing these spirit bodies with physical bodies, transforming these physical bodies into glorious immortal bodies) but  can't be created or destroyed.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >25</FONT></div> <div> - We  existed in an adult self-aware state with God prior to mortality as God's spirit children.</div> <div> - We chose  to be tested and experience mortality with its associated pain and evil. We  are here to be educated to become like God and to experience joy.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >26</FONT></div> <div> - All innocents (children below the age of accountability [8] and the mentally handicapped below this level) who die are guaranteed eternal life.</div> <div> - Those who receive great evil and pain in mortality knew beforehand they would experience it. They chose to be born into such families and circumstances in exchange for a perceived greater good (probably eternal life).</div> <div> - The memory of our pre-mortal existence is removed and God doesn't force our paths. We live by faith without sure knowledge and act by our free-will in accordance with our  uncreated nature.</div> <bR> <div> <B>3) Sin </B></div> <bR> <div> - Good and evil have always existed.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >27</FONT> They are two opposing nonpersonal forces that exist in the Multiverse.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >28</FONT></div> <div> - Good  didn't originate from God.</div> <div> - Evil  didn't originate from Satan.</div> <bR> <div> <B>4) Responsibility </B></div> <bR> <div> - All evil  is the responsibility of the evil-doer since our nature and free-will aren't contingent upon God. God  didn't create our nature and  respects the choices we make in mortality even if he wants to intervene. The nature of our  self-existent intelligence  determines our character but all can overcome its predispositions for evil by discipline and reliance upon Christ.</div> <div> - All made agreements prior to mortality to go into certain families and circumstances, to experience evils and pain. All who suffer tremendous pain and evil knew of their fate beforehand. They chose such a life and death in exchange for a perceived greater good.</div> <div> - God isn't to blame for the existence of evil and the continuance of evil and pain. He didn't create the fallible nature of man, evil has always existed and the victims were the ones who chose such a fate in exchange for what they view as a benefit they wouldn't be able to receive any other way. </div> <bR> <div> <B>5) Punishment </B></div> <bR> <div> - Hell  isn't a permanent place of punishment.  Infinite punishment isn't appropriate for finite sin. Eternal punishment is God's punishment since God is Eternal and isn't in reference to an unceasing torture.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >29</FONT></div> <div> - Every human will have an equal opportunity of learning and accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If they never had the opportunity in mortality, they will have a chance in the spirit world.</div> <div> - The only unending punishment is symbolized by the lake of fire which is reserved for Satan and his demons who sinned against knowledge in the  pre-existence and those truly evil beings who knowingly choose and do evil over good and who sin against knowledge (if not in this life, in the next). Their punishment is associated with banishment in “ outer darkness.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >30</FONT></div> <div> - Nearly all humans will receive a kingdom of glory after paying the price of their sins and rebellions. True salvation is for those who are the true followers of Christ. They will  enjoy exaltation along with companionship with Jesus and the Father in the  Celestial kingdom. All the rest go to the  Terrestial and  Telestial kingdoms. They receive glory but are eternally barred from companionship with the Father and don't have eternal increase. </div> <bR> <div> <B>6) Non-human Life </B></div> <bR> <div> All Life, from the lowest bacteria to the biggest dinosaur has spiritual existence, both prior to and after mortality.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >31</FONT></div> <div> All Life is  comprised of uncreated intelligences at the core of their beings.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >32</FONT></div> <div> - All Life  receives some measure of “salvation” due to the atonement of Christ.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >33</FONT></div> <div> - All Life chooses the circumstances of their mortal existence. They knew in advance any evil and pain they experience and agreed to receive it in exchange for a greater existence - i.e., an eternity of corporeality.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >34</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>7) Inanimate Matter </B></div> <bR> <div> - All things contain uncreated intelligence at their core of existence.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >35</FONT> There are an  infinite number of uncreated intelligences.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >36</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      These unique insights of Mormonism vindicates the righteous existence of God and effectively resolves the philosophical problems inherent in Traditional Theism. Their philosophers have been trying to resolve the problem of God and evil for centuries but despite the number of brilliant minds working on this problem, they have been unable to satisfactorily resolve it whereas a young boy,  Joseph Smith, over a hundred and fifty years ago, effectively solved it by giving us the Latter-day Scriptures (The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price).</div> <bR> <div> <B>The uncreated “intelligence”</B></div> <bR> <div>      Mormonism teaches we are actually uncreated “intelligences.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >37</FONT> This central portion of our being is the very core of who we are. Our  “Intelligence,” the foundation of man's spirit  wasn't created by God:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. <I>Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.</I></div> <bR> <div>      The central portion of our being is  self-existent and  can't be created by God.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >38</FONT> We, as uncreated intelligences, were with him from all eternity (D&C  93:23) and it is beyond God's power to create us <I>ex-nihilo</I>. There isn't any power within the  Multiverse that can create or destroy our “intelligence.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >39 </FONT></div> <div>      God took  self-existing intelligences and  clothed us with spirit bodies, similar to a pearl is built around a grain of sand (or a one-dimensional straight wire is bent into a two-dimensional ring). A select group of these spirit entities became his spirit offspring while the rest remained his creation.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >40</FONT> This period is called our “ <B>First Estate</B>” (Jude 1:6; Abr 3:26,28). </div> <div>      We spirit creatures are then enclosed within physical bodies during mortality to be tested (the ring is “stretched” into a three-dimensional spring). This period of our existence is called our “ <B>Second Estate</B>” (Abr 3:26). After dying and reverting back to incorporeal spirits, we go into the “world of spirits” and enter into states appropriate for our righteousness and obedience to God (paradise/hell). </div> <div>      After another period of time we are  resurrected (our spirits are reunited with our physical bodies which have been re-assembled and transformed into immortal bodies) and we are assigned our permanent abodes of residence. Those who are truly valiant and righteous become glorified and progress on to the next stage of development in our eternal progression and  become “God/Gods/gods” (the spring is further “stretched” into a four-dimensional “God”), the greatest possible blessing from God (see MORMONISM Section 5). The remainder is placed in inferior areas suitable for their righteousness and obedience (i.e., the lesser levels in the  Celestial Kingdom, the  Terrestial and  Telestial Kingdoms). This final state is called our “ <B>Third Estate</B>.” Those who achieve this greatest level in the  Celestial Kingdom reach a point where we can repeat the process and do to other self-existing  intelligences what God has done for us. </div> <div>       All things, both living, and the unliving, are made up of these uncreated  intelligences.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >41</FONT> This concept explains why other life forms<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >42</FONT> and inanimate matter<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >43</FONT> are viewed by the Scriptures as having the ability of obeying and comprehending God's commandments. If God commands a mountain (or a tree) to throw itself into the sea, it happens! Why? Is it because God somehow exerts a force upon the mountain and pushes or pulls it into the sea, like some sort of telekinesis or “tractor beam”? If so, why bother <I>commanding</I> the mountain? It's a non-sequitur. It is foolish for me to command a book to put itself in the bookshelf if I am the one who puts it in. </div> <div>      <B>The mere fact God commands inanimate objects reveals God's expectation that these objects comprehend the order he gives.</B> Why? This is only possible if God views these inanimate objects of possessing the <I>ability</I> to understand his order. Consequently, these  objects must possess a cognitive ability on a level communicable with God. God's actions imply the existence of a “mind” in inanimate objects that can equally influence every atom within themselves. There can only be two choices for what this “mind” could be: (1) The existence of a macro-mind that can influence all of its parts, or, (2) The existence of numerous micro-minds that only influence what immediately envelops them but loosely function as parts of a whole. The latter view is much more preferable than the other since it resolves the breakability issue and the transformation into other materials without affecting the functionality of the “minds.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >44</FONT></div> <div>      This means the mountain “mind” that has the ability to obey God doesn't lose portions of itself when material from the mountain is removed because the mind can exist even if it's in a single particle. Of course, it will no longer be a mountain mind but will be whatever that specific particle is. Any material that was previously part of this mountain can be combined with other materials and converted into different products and will become part of a whole new form.</div> <div>      Mormonism views God as working with  self-existent intelligences. He is thus limited. He can be  all-good but the evil in the world is not his responsibility. He is simply doing his best being  limited by our free-will, the pre-existent nature of Good and Evil and by the causality of the universe. </div> <div>      Our uncreated nature explains why blaming one's environmental upbringing for character flaws is merely an excuse. One only needs to look at those who triumph in life, living holy and righteous lives despite having the worst possible rearing while there are many who live a life of depravity and evil despite having a positive, warm, loving and righteous upbringing.</div> <div>      Those who have strength of conviction don't get it from their upbringing, [which merely identifies what to do and begins behavioral attitudes] but such characteristics are part of their self-existent nature. This absolves God of any responsibility for their shortcomings. Sure, there are some whose nature is such that they are easily influenced by their environments but this character weakness isn't created by God but is part of their self-existent nature. <I>God is never responsible for our failures.</I> Each individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make in mortality. </div> <div>      Our self-existent nature determines what we are. A person whose self-existent nature is righteous will always be righteous no matter how evil his environment is. One whose nature is truly evil will always be evil no matter how righteous his upbringing and environment <B>unless making a strenuous effort to overcome the negative tendencies of his uncreated nature.</B> The self-existent intelligence who became Hitler, would've always turned out evil regardless of how positive and good his environment was whereas the self-existent intelligence who became St. Francis of Assisi would've always been righteous no matter how evil his upbringing was. This resolves the inadequacies inherent within the nature vs nurture paradox.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >45</FONT>   </div> <div>     Our self-existent being is in an irreducible state. It can't become less than what it always was but can be improved (as evidenced by the different levels of smartness, self-existent “intelligences”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >46</FONT> have-Abr  3:18-21). </div> <div>      God's glory isn't the universe and the tangible creations and commendable accomplishments of man:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>Mos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >47</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The universe was created for this purpose, not us for the universe. This world was  created specifically for us (Abr  3:24-4:1).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >48</FONT> Students take their exams to make themselves better, not to make their exams better.</div> <div>      We are here on the earth to become like God, to be transformed into replicas of himself. We are all given the opportunity in mortality to improve ourselves, to improve our self-existen t nature. All who come into mortality have the <I>potential</I> of increase and are given the opportunities to actualize such improvement. All whose nature is evil,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >49</FONT> who become truly evil in mortality are given many opportunities to chose the right and improve their nature since such is the purpose of their mortal existence.</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>Abr<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 3:18-26 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, <I>if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.  </I>And the Lord said unto me:<I> These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. </I>The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah. I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; <I>I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.</I> Now <I>the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones</I>. And <I>God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them</I>, and he said: <I>These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good;</I> and he said unto me:<I> Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born</I>. And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and <I>we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;</I> And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and <I>they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Intelligences have different levels of “smartness.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >50</FONT> It's possible for God to aid in increasing the “smartness” of these intelligences,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >51</FONT> but not to destroy  the intelligences themselves. Continual effort at  obedience to God's will results in eternal glorification of these intelligences (i.e., they become “ God/Gods/gods” themselves, forever being greater than what they originally were).</div> <div>      We maintain our  free agency in mortality and are never forced by God to act in a certain way. Our memories are removed for all to invariably follow what they are going to be by being what they truly are. We will always be true to our nature unless making the effort of forcing ourselves to act contrary to our predispositions.</div> <div>      <B>Our uncreated nature is the heart of </B> <B>“</B> <B>free agency.”</B> We are all free by nature. This is one thing that constrains God. Because God would've known who will be righteous and who will be evil if he created us  <I>ex nihilo</I>, he would've been in a position to modify the characters of those who would turn out evil to reject sin and iniquity. <I>But he didn't. </I>His omission causes him to be <I>responsible</I> for their sin. An auto company that knowingly produced cars with faulty brakes receives the blame for all injuries and deaths caused by the faulty brakes; because it knew the cars were unsafe and could've easily fixed the problem if it wished. </div> <div>      As a result, we and Satan were created by God in the sense of him getting self-existing  intelligences and organizing us into his spirit children and not an  <I>ex-nihilo</I> creation. This absolves God of any responsibility for our sins and failures since the potential “evil nature” of any being isn't God's fault since they weren't created by God but were always present in these co-eternal  intelligences.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Is God responsible for Satan's evil? </B></div> <bR> <div>      Some anti-Mormons suggest Mormons are evil by claiming we believe Satan  is the brother of Jesus. The way this is usually phrased, out of the context of Mormon theology, is propagandistic and inflammatory but is more or less true by all of us being spirit siblings. However, in traditional theology Satan continues to exist because it is God's will. There is no way around it. If Satan is a contingent being, he would cease to exist without God's sustaining will. God could snuff him and sin out of existence with a thought ... but he doesn't. </div> <div>      Who is responsible for evil? Satan? If we assume God created Satan  <I>ex nihilo</I> he would initially be good, but if God is omn ipotent and om niscient (Isa  41:21-23;  42:9;  46:10; Acts 4:28; D&C  130:7); he would've known Satan was going to fall and bring an untold number into eternal misery and damnation <I>before</I> creating him. <I>God knew this</I> and despite knowing it still created Satan, which makes his fall designed by God.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >52</FONT></div> <div>      Disregarding omniscience and omnipotence, if I had a very vicious dog who always bit strangers, am I not held accountable if I let the dog loose in a park who then mauls a lot of children? Of course! It is my fault the dog attacked the children because I knew beforehand my dog would do so before releasing him. </div> <div>      It is the same with God and Satan but infinitely more serious because of God's omniscience and  omnipotence. God knew beforehand Satan was going to fall (also see John 6:64) [unlike my educated guess since the future is the past to God] and could've made his personality more impervious to temptation but didn't, and<I> that</I> makes him responsible for all the evil Satan commits. Consequently, A) God didn't create Satan  <I>ex nihilo</I> and B) God isn't omnipotent if he's omnibenevolent. Or C) God is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent and wouldn't be a  holy and sinless God. </div> <bR> <div> <B>What does “omnipotent” mean? </B></div> <bR> <div>      Mormonism understands the word “omnipotence” to be  synonymous with “all-powerful.” We shy away from describing God as  “being able to do anything” since such a statement can easily become self-contradictory and illogical (i.e., “Can God create a rock that is so heavy he can't lift it?”) It is much more accurate to describe God as  “all-powerful.” This means God has all the power that exists. This enables God to still be “omnipotent” even though  he can't create or destroy the uncreated intelligences, can't destroy evil as a whole and can't dismiss the consequences of sin without a substitute because <I>no power exists anywhere that could do these things.</I></div> <bR> <div>   <B>If no power exists anywhere that can do “something,” God's inability to do that “something” can't negate his being omnipotent.</B></div> <bR> <div>      We interpret passages implying  omnipotence<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >53</FONT> to refer to God possessing the ability to have  all the power available at any time.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >54</FONT> There isn't any power available that God can't utilize or it is used as a metaphor of his abilities. God shares his power with other beings who utilize it in accordance with their uncreated natures. Their uncreated natures absolve God of the responsibility of any misuse of power by these beings.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The importance of the pre-existence </B></div> <bR> <div>      It is well-known that Mormonism teaches the doctrine of the pre-existence, a place that we existed as adult spirit offspring of God prior to coming to the earth (Job  38:4-7; Jer 1:5; John 9:2; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:4; Alma  13:1-3; D&C  29:31-38; Mos  3:4-7; Abr  3:22-4:2).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >55</FONT> This adult self-aware state resulted in the War in Heaven,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >56</FONT> where 1/3 of the spirit offspring of God who were led by Satan fought against God's plan and were cast out of heaven (Rev  12:4,7-9; D&C  29:36-37; Mos  4:1-4; Isa  14:12-14; Luke  10:18; 2 Ne  2:17-18; D&C  76:25-27).</div> <div>      A popular Mormon belief associated with the  pre-existence is the idea that we actually chose to be born into the families we're born into and the circumstances of our mortal lives. In other words, <I>we chose the life we receive.</I> It isn't clarified to what extent we knew the outlines of our mortal lives while in the  pre-existence, but <I>we definitely didn't know the details</I>.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >57</FONT></div> <div>      What we do know is we chose to experience evil and pain. We entered mortality <I>knowing in advance </I>we will experience the bitterness of sin in order to triumph (D&C  29:39; Mos  6:55-56). </div> <div>      We lived in an adult self-aware state already with free-will. We fought and won the  War in Heaven to be tried and t ested despite not knowing whether our uncreated natures are such that we would be righteous in mortality regardless of the circumstances of our lives. We <I>believed</I> we would pass the test of mortality. We wanted the chance to be exalted so badly that we went to war for it. We viewed the “consolation prize” of having a glorified, immortal, material nature as still being  better than an eternity in an incorporeal state (D&C  93:33-34; 2 Ne  9:8-15), despite it never really makes up for the bitterness of failing to attain exaltation.</div> <div>      This self-confidence was in an environment of <B>knowing</B> God and his will. We became true to our uncreated natures only when our  memories were erased while entering mortality, so that we'll operate in an environment where <B>faith</B> (without sure knowledge) is needed. This obscuring of our memories causes us to act in accordance with our self-existent nature. This prevents us from being something we aren't. If our self-existent nature is truly good, we will act righteous. If our nature is truly evil, we will act evil <I>unless making the effort</I> to become righteous.</div> <div>      We weren't aware of the qualities and limitations of our uncreated intelligences while in the pre-existence because all of us believed we would be righteous while in mortality even if others fail. All of us believed we would make it where others faltered. If we knew our uncreated nature was such that we would be evil regardless of the circumstances of our mortal lives, why bother becoming human? <I>Why would anyone bother taking an extremely difficult test if they knew that no matter what they did, they are guaranteed to fail</I>? The <I>purpose</I> of mortality is to be a place for all of us to learn to become like God. The mere fact it is a test gives certainty that all of us entered mortality with the expectation that we would pass the ordeal. </div> <div>      <B>It is only </B><I><B>after</B></I><B> mortality that we finally realize the qualities of our uncreated natures.</B> It is only then, <I>after</I> functioning in an environment without knowledge of God and his will, that we will know that those who turned out good would've always turned out righteous regardless of the circumstances of their mortality and those who turned out evil would've always become such regardless of the circumstances of their mortal lives. Each person's assigned destination is the highest possible for them under any circumstance of mortality that allows the exercise of free-agency. In other words, their uncreated natures are the <I>sole</I> source of any limitation of glory.</div> <div>      Another particular to point out is those spirits who get to exercise free-agency in mortality<I> didn't know the details</I> of our coming mortality while in the pre-existence or else everything about our lives would be pre-determined. We would then be merely going through the motions laid out before us instead of having genuine freedom and experiencing a real test.</div> <bR> <div>      The choice Heavenly Father offered each of us in the pre-existence was quite simple:</div> <bR> <div>   Take a chance of becoming exalted (become a “God” like me) and if you fail, you will receive an eternity of a material body and some degree of glory. If you refuse, you will remain an incorporeal spirit for all eternity. </div> <bR> <div>      This can be described as:</div> <div> <IMG SRC="0876a1b0.jpg" border=0 width="618" height="283" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div>      All humans were on the side that won the War in Heaven. Because we sided with Heavenly Father's choice of Jesus Christ, we receive a free gift regardless of our righteousness on earth. All of us will be resurrected and receive immortal bodies, while Satan and those who fell will never receive physical bodies. Only those who pass the test of mortality progress onward to be exalted and become replicas of God. </div> <div>      The concept of the pre-existence is very important as can be seen by the following hypothetical scenario:</div> <bR> <div>      Keith (22) was tied to a post and had the fingernails of his right hand pulled out by his boss, Peter.</div> <div>      This appears to be an evil act and those who learn of this incident will view Peter as evil who must be punished. </div> <div>      (1) After the incident, Peter recompensed Keith for his pain and suffering for 10 million dollars.</div> <div>      (2) The city where the company was located had a law stating all companies must have a worker have all the fingernails of one hand pulled out or else have their assets expropriated by the city, with all losing their employment. The boss, Peter, being a righteous man hated the law but this was the only town he could have his business. He needed one of his workers to fill the position of the company victim to enable all his workers to keep their employment. To encourage an employee to suffer for the sake of the company, He promised a cash incentive to whomever will “fill the slot.” Keith volunteered and entered into an agreement with Peter prior to the incident. He agreed to have his fingernails pulled out and experience the pain associated with their extraction in exchange for 10 million dollars. The deal was written and was a legal document, both parties signed it and the funds were transferred into Keith's account as soon as the last nail was pulled.</div> <bR> <div>      The issue isn't “Was it worth it? It is, “Was it an evil that condemns Peter as being evil?” </div> <div>       Traditional Theism has only thought along the lines of #1 whereas Mormonism thinks along the lines of #2. The “evilness” of the incident always depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. <B>Having prior knowledge of the coming evil and entering into a contract to receive such evil in exchange for a perceived greater good nullifies God receiving the blame for the evil</B>. </div> <div>      Since God knows every detail of every person's life in mortality before creating the earth, he knows which children and infants are going to be brutally murdered and oppressed. He knows all those who will become victims and suffer unjustly. He knows all those who will experience  pointless evil. God knew before creating the earth that Mary, the daughter of John and Jane McBlank of Anytown, USA is going to be murdered after being raped and tortured by Mr. _______ at the age of six. </div> <div>      Mormon thought views an “adult” spirit child of God in the pre-existence as choosing to become this Mary, knowing full well her fate. Because of <I>her choice </I>to become Mary and <I>her choice</I> to suffer, she is promised exaltation by God. The evil occurs. The evil continues. God doesn't interfere. Mary dies a violent death. Where was God? His hands were tied. No matter how much he wanted to eliminate the evil, he respected her choice and <I>she got what she agreed for.</I> Is God still omnipotent? He could've prevented the evil to occur but if he did, he wouldn't have honored the covenant he made with Mary in the pre-existence. </div> <div>      The same deal applies to Mary's parents. They knew beforehand they would experience terrible pain. All who would be affected by Mary's loss and suffering knew before the earth was even made, billions of years ago, that they would experience such pain. </div> <bR> <div>   <B>God stands by, allows evil to occur and continue, because any interference on his part will invalidate the agreement he made with these victims before they were placed in mortality. </B></div> <bR> <div>      What about he who committed the abomination? God knew beforehand this spirit child of his would do such an evil thing, why did he place him in the circumstances that would cause him to become such a monster? </div> <div>      All evil is the  responsibility of the evil-doers.  God isn't responsible for their actions despite knowing the evil in advance since (1) evil's existence, their nature, free will and desires aren't contingent upon God's will. They are s elf-existent and co-eternal with God and (2) the recipients of the evil agreed beforehand to receive it in exchange for what they perceived was a greater good, probably exaltation (becom e God/Gods/gods themselves).</div> <div>      <I>This knowledge doesn't lessen the pain of the effects of the evil, but it explains why God stood silently on the sidelines.</I> He won't cheat Mary out of her exaltation. He won't interfere with Mr. _______'s exercise of his  free-will by following his uncreated nature. Mr. ________ followed his self-ex istent nature and can't blame anyone else for his crimes, which preserves God being “all-good” and “all-powerful.”</div> <div>       <B>There are no innocent victims!</B> The infant who is tossed in the air and bayoneted by the soldier chose to live that life while in the  pre-existence! The exchange for living that brief and painful life was exaltation. That four year old child who is beaten, abused, starved and murdered by her mother chose to live that hell before being born! It was her choice and God respected her decision despite the horror he felt. Living in an evil and sinful world means a lot of slots of suffering are open waiting to be filled. Because of God's love, he offers a greater good to all who have the courage to accept being sent to those lives of misery and pain.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >58</FONT></div> <div>       <I>The victims</I> <I>need to exist in order for God's judgment against the evil-doers to be justified</I>. Having an evil nature isn't enough for condemnation. Their evil nature needs to be acted upon “to fulfill all righteousness.”</div> <div>      All who have suffered then died by evil, especially pointless  evil went into mortality knowing in advance their fate and did so with the expectation of being exalted by such a life. Consequently, they are not innocent victims. There is only one who is truly innocent: Jesus Christ. He is the only being who was subjected to evil, in very fact, the compounded evil and pain that mankind collectively will ever experience. He willingly  took upon himself the pain and consequences of evil to accomplish the atonement of mankind. He didn't seek anything in return for his sacrifice since he was already God prior to mortality but the Father did reward him for his actions because of his unselfish love. </div> <div>      God always gives us the freedom to choose. God told us in the  pre-existence if we choose mortality with its associated evil, pain and suffering, we will be blessed in two ways (1) All of us will enjoy an eternity of corporeality (all humans will eternally have physical form- D&C  93:33-34; 2 Ne  9:8-15; Alma  11:42-45) and (2) those who obey him the best they possibly can will be transformed into replicas of him.</div> <div>      God did the same thing with non-human life. Since they likewise had a  pre-existence and possessed the ability to comprehend communication from God, they then also chose the circumstances of their mortal existence. God gave them the choice of a mortal existence where they will suffer evil, pain and fear, in exchange for an eternal possession of corporeality (Rom  8:21; D&C  93:33-34). They knew in advance any suffering and evil they'll experience and agreed to enter mortality in exchange for something so much better than they had while incorporeal spirits.</div> <div>      <B>Knowing all who suffer on the earth chose such a life in the </B> <B>pre-existence doesn't give us a fatalistic attitude</B> since <I>we must do the best we can in destroying evil.</I> This is one reason why our  memories were removed since we currently don't know who's going to die suffering and who's going to receive relief while mortal. <I>This ignorance compels us to view all who suffer as needing relief. Failure on our part to do so condemns us for </I> <I>inaction which allowed evil to continue.</I></div> <div>      The Mormon view of the  pre-existence is the <I>only way</I> for undeserved suffering to be equated with an all-good all-powerful God since <I>a mere compensation doesn't morally justify God for causing evil upon the innocent.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>The uncreated “Good” and “Evil”</B></div> <bR> <div>      Where does “Evil” come from? There are only three possibilities for its origin in relation to God: “after, simultaneously, before.” Did it come into existence <I>after</I> God? Did it come into existence<I> the same time</I> God did? Did it exist <I>before</I> God was “God”? </div> <div>      Each of these areas carries logical implications:</div> <bR> <div> (1) It came <I>after</I> God. (Implies God is responsible for “Evil” because he had the power and desire to prevent it from existing.)</div> <div> (2) It came <I>simultaneously</I> with God. (Implies an <I>entity</I> exists in <I>equal</I> opposition to God that is “all-Evil.”)</div> <div> (3) It came <I>before</I> God. (Implies God isn't responsible for the existence of “Evil” and he needs to function in a manner that doesn't violate the Law of Justice.)</div> <bR> <div>      If “Evil” exists and God is “all-good”; God's very nature of being “all-good” means “evil” <I>can't</I> originate from him. Consequently, it has to exist <I>outside</I> God which means it either existed <I>before</I> him or came into existence <I>the same time</I> he did. The “simultaneous existence of evil with God” carries a troublesome ramification. Since God <I>embodies</I> “Good”; this means there would need to be an<I> entity</I> that embodies “Evil” in <I>equal</I> opposition to him - (a real Duality,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >59</FONT> not Traditional Theism's ontologically and functionally inferior Satan). This conflicts with what all Traditional Theism and Mormonism believes about God and is consequently discarded. </div> <div>      If we believe God is “all-Good,” “Evil” is real and there isn't an “all-Evil” being in equal opposition to God; the only legitimate possibility for the origin of “Evil” is “Evil” existed before God was “God.”</div> <div>      Because “Evil” is the violation of “Good” and can't exist if “Good” doesn't exist; this means “Good” existed prior to God as God if “Evil” existed prior to God as God. Because Good and Evil are an eternal duality; any entity needs to adhere to one or the other. If God is Good he can't have any Evil since just a tiny amount is enough to make him “evil.”</div> <div>      Picture the “Good” state as an unbroken egg and the “Evil” state as a broken egg. These are diametric states. If one is Good; one can't be Evil. The moment an entity has a tiny amount of Evil his “egg” shatters and can never go back to the unbroken state. God himself can't disregard the <I>consequences</I> of the Evil state because it is<I> outside his dominion</I>. It wouldn't be if he was also an Evil God but this is precluded by him being “all-good.”</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>(1) 2 Ne<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 2:11-12 For it must needs be, that <I>there is an opposition in all things</I>. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore <I>there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.</I> Wherefore, <I>this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes,</I> and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.</div> <bR> <div>   (2) 2 Ne<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 2:15-25 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created,<I> it must needs be that there was an opposition;</I> even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore,<I> the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself</I>. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth. And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. And now, behold, <I>if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.</I></div> <div>  </div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>(3) Jac<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 5:59 And this I do that, perhaps, the roots thereof may take strength <I>because of their goodness;</I> and because of the change of the branches, <I>that the good may overcome the evil.</I></div> <bR> <div>         Good and evil have always existed. Evil didn't originate from Satan but pre-existed his fall. Without opposition, pain and evil, there is no point to Earth life at all. Without the Fall, there wouldn't be a human race. We need to <I>choose</I> to overcome evil ourselves. For this purpose God provided us with this evil, painful, imperfect world, so unlike what one normally expects from an  infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >60</FONT> If there isn't any opposition, pain and evil there is no purpose to the creation and we can't have genuine freedom (2 Ne  2:26-27; Alma  42:27-28; Hela  14:30-31; D&C  29:39; Mos  6:55-56). Does this sound like an omnipotent God? Not in the classical sense.</div> <bR> <div> <B>God functions within eternal laws </B></div> <bR> <div>      God is a God of order. He can't break certain laws and still maintain his position. These laws govern his actions and determine his nature:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>Alma <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>42:13,22,25 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. <I>Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God</I> ... But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, <I>the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God</I> ... What, <I>do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.</I></div> <bR> <div>      According to the Book of Mormon, the  Law of Justice is a law which God can't abolish and still maintain his position. If he doesn't honor this eternal law, he ceases to be God. </div> <div>      Does this mean Mormonism believes in a “weak” God? No. God is still “all-powerful” <B>because no power exists anywhere that can abolish the </B> <B>Law of Justice</B> (consequences for evil actions).</div> <div>      <B>The Law of Justice</B> means every violation of “Good” carries eternal punishments. All stains are permanent. All the guilty are subject to punishment. This law is immovable and unchangeable because “ Good” and “Evil” are eternal principles. They are uncreated and neither of them can ever cease to exist. God himself can't eliminate “Good” or “Evil” <I>as a whole</I>, because they exist in the Multiverse and pre-exist God as God.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >61</FONT> It is impossible to abolish the Law of Justice in a Multiverse containing free-will because “Good” and “Evil” (the violation of “Good”) will always exist.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >62</FONT> If God could ever abolish the Law of Justice, “Good” and “Evil” will no longer exist because Justice is the consequence of the existence of “Good” and “Evil.” This would mean God himself will cease to exist because he is “all-<I>good</I>.”</div> <div>      Uncreated intelligences listen to and  obey God. Righteousness manipulates them. If God is no longer righteous, he will lose the ability to order and control the self-existent intelligences. Why? Because <I>the uncreated nature of “Good” and “Evil” with the existence of Justice prohibits the existence of an all-powerful evil being anywhere in the Multiverse.</I> Any violation of “Good” carries eternal punishments. Only righteous beings can <I>permanently</I> manipulate the uncreated intelligences.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >63</FONT></div> <div>      The only way to prevent the guilty from being subject to Justice is by substitution of an innocent who possesses a greater status. Only  an innocent volunteer who takes upon himself the consequences of the violated laws is able to relieve the offenders from their deserving punishment. <B>This is why God sacrificed his Son for us.</B> The status of Jesus Christ as “God” enabled him to substitute himself as the recipient of the consequences of violations of “Good” (the Atonement- 2 Ne  9:20-21; Mosi  3:5-8; Alma  42:15; etc.). Because Jesus strictly lived a sin-free life (2 Cor  5:21; Heb  4:15;  7:26;  9:14; 1 Pet  2:22; 1 Jn  3:5), he is innocent from any punishment Justice may inflict on the sinners. He does not <I>deserve</I> any punishment Justice may inflict. He voluntarily took upon himself the consequences of those who have violated the rule of “Good.” His Sacrifice  created the Law of Mercy in our universe.</div> <div>      <B>The Law of Mercy</B> enables all who've violated “Good” to avoid the eternal consequences of their actions. This means all who deserve to be punished for their sins can escape Justice. This is done by  accepting Jesus as one's Savior and becoming his true followers. <I>We need to be</I> <I> incorporated into his person by true discipleship.</I> Being in such a union  shields us from the grasp of Justice because his Sacrifice pays for our offense.</div> <div>      In other words,  we “hide” inside Jesus. Jesus  “smuggles” us into heaven. Justice can't see our sinfulness because the  “skin” of Jesus conceals us. <B>The Law of Justice </B> <B>isn't cheated in any way because J</B> <B>esus paid the price of any offense we may have done</B>.  His Sacrifice <I>satisfies</I> Justice.</div> <div>      The Law of Justice <I>always</I> inflicts punishments for every violation of “Good” either on us directly, (if we don't abide by the terms needed to receive the Law of Mercy) or on Jesus as a substitute.</div> <div>      If one of my children stole some candy at a store worth 10 dollars, he <I>deserves</I> punishment regardless of the value of the candy since the store's laws and rights were <I>violated</I>. If the punishment for the offense was monetary compensation of $200.00, and my son is unable to pay the fine, he will go to jail. It just so happens that my son doesn't have the money and is going to jail. I then offer my son a deal. I will pay the fine on condition he not do it again and abide by the rules I set. If he agrees, he is released from his obligation to the store and avoids punishment. If not, the store will press charges and he will go to jail despite the store may have already received compensation for the theft. Fortunately, he agrees. I then gave the store $10,000.00 as payment. This is way in excess of what the store's owners initially demanded. I gave all they asked and even more. My action <I>satisfies</I> the demands of the store and <I>appeases</I> their wrath. My son is still guilty of his crime but the <I>consequences</I> of his actions were paid for on condition he abides by the terms I impose. This prevents him from having to pay for his crime. If he doesn't live up to his side of the agreement, the store will press charges and he will go to jail.</div> <div>      <B>Jesus </B> <B>paid the consequences of </B><I><B>all </B></I><B>of mankind's sins.</B> His one Sacrifice  satisfies the demands of Justice for the sins of everyone. He paid in excess of what Justice demands on the collective humanity because of his status as holy “God” in addition to being a sinless “Man.” This enables every single person to be delivered from the grasp of Justice <I>if</I>, they accept the conditions Jesus imposes. Because  Mercy satisfies the demands of Justice, all who fall under its rule need not fear for their past misdeeds because they are released from the demands of Justice. </div> <div>      Rejecting the notion of the uncreated nature of “Good” and “Evil” causes God to be responsible for the existence of evil. </div> <div>      There is simply no way around the fact that “Good” and “Evil” have to be uncreated in order to exonerate God from being responsible for evil, which means the “Law of Justice” really exists. The uncreated “Good” and “Evil” and the “Law of Justice” creates an inescapable consequence: </div> <bR> <div> <B>  A superior being than humans (i.e., a “God”) who hasn't violated “Good” (i.e., is sinless), who takes upon himself the consequences of the offended Law of Justice is </B><I><B>the only possible way</B></I><B> to save humans.</B> </div> <bR> <div>      There <I>needs to be</I> a “God” who is a sinless substitute, for any deliverance from sin to be valid. This means God <I>can't</I> forgive us without furnishing a <I>greater</I> sinless being (either himself or another) as a substitute! </div> <div>      The substitute has to be a <I>superior ontological being</I> than those he's atoning for in order for <I>multiple</I> beings to receive the benefits of the substitution. If Jesus was<I> solely</I> human, his substitution could only redeem one human (e.g., 1 dollar can only be fairly exchanged for another “1 dollar value”). However, if Jesus was also a superior being (i.e., a “God”) as well as being human, his status as “God” enables him to substitute himself for multiple humans (e.g., one trillion dollars can be fairly substituted with one trillion 1-dollar bills).</div> <div>      Because of this, if the Law of Justice views a “God” to be infinitely more valuable than a human, the substitution of a sinless “God” for sinful humans means an infinite number of humans can receive redemption through the sacrifice of one “God.” This is why Christ's sacrifice is called an <I>infinite</I> atonement (2 Ne  9:7;  25:16; Alma  34:10-14).</div> <div>      <B>The entire soteriological structure of Christianity, with Jesus as the superior sinless substitute</B><I><B> is the only possible way</B></I><B> for salvation to occur.</B></div> <div>      Following the causal orders to their very end is the only way to determine the viability of certain hypothesis. This is why those who disbelieve the soteriological structure of Christianity are trapped in a dilemma: </div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f003c00f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If God is all-good, he <I>can't</I> be responsible for evil (“Evil” [and “Good”] aren't contingent upon God).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f003c00f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If God isn't responsible for evil, it then has to be <I>outside</I> his domination (“Evil” [and “Good”] are uncreated).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f003c00f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If evil is outside his dominion, God <I>can't</I> disregard the consequences of evil (he needs to obey the Law of Justice and can't destroy it).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f003c00f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">If God can't disregard the consequences of evil, he needs to <I>satisfy</I> the punishment demanded for those who've done evil (God needs to satisfy the demands of the Law of Justice in order to save sinners).</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f003c00f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">To satisfy the punishment, God needs to<I> substitute an innocent</I> for the guilty and this substitute needs to be <I>ontologically superior</I> to those being delivered (1. Since “sin” is “Evil” the substitute needs to be “sinless.” 2. Since a one dollar bill can only be fairly exchanged with a one dollar value, the substitute needs to be ontologically greater than humans [i.e., a “God”] in order for <I>numerous</I> humans to be saved).</div> <bR> <div>      No matter how upsetting such a conclusion may be to some, this deduction is inescapable from the belief God is all-good. <B>It is the only possible conclusion to maintain logical consistency. </B>Starting from the position that God is “all-good” <I>inevitably</I> leads to the existence of a “sinless God/Man” as a substitute to save mankind. The <I>only</I> logical option for those who disbelieve the legitimacy of the Christian structure would be to view God as not being “all-good.” </div> <div>      There isn't any question to deny the Christian structure results in “Good” and “Evil” being <I>contingent</I> upon God, which would mean God is <I>responsible</I> for evil. </div> <div>      Either “Good” and “Evil” are contingent upon God or they aren't. If they are, God <I>is</I> responsible of evil. If they aren't, God <I>is not</I> responsible for evil. </div> <div>      Traditional Christians can't dismiss the idea of the uncreated “Good” and “Evil” and its consequences. Even if there is a way that God is not responsible for evil despite evil is contingent upon him; it still doesn't explain why God would <I>need </I>to sacrifice his Son as a sinless substitute for our sins. If “Good” and “Evil” are contingent upon him, this would mean God would be able to furnish the elimination of the consequences of “Evil” by any means he wishes. He didn't need to subject Jesus to the mind-boggling agony of the Atonement. All he needed to do was snap his fingers or exercise his will and the consequences of “Evil” would vanish. </div> <div>      Could God be a holy being if all he needed to do was <I>desire</I> the consequences of “Evil” away instead of subjecting an innocent being to torture?</div> <div>      God has free-agency! He isn't <I>obligated</I> to organize uncreated intelligences into spirit offspring if he doesn't want to have children! He could easily create non-rational creatures and have a universe-sized playground! He could easily create rational creatures that don't have the potential of becoming like him. The point is: if God desires to have real children who can become like him, he can only do so by abiding by eternal laws! He can't disregard the eternal order of things. It just so happens that Heavenly Father wants to have children and he knows there is <B>only </B><I><B>one</B></I><B> way</B> for his children to become like him. </div> <div>      <I>If God had his way</I>, I'm sure he would do his best to ensure <I>all </I>of his children would be exalted. The problem is “God's hands are tied!” It <I>doesn't matter </I>what he wants, exaltation can only occur <I>one way</I>, and anyone who doesn't abide by the conditions for exaltation simply won't get exalted. </div> <div>      Because of our free agency, many will <I>deliberately</I> chose to reject Jesus Christ's demands and will consequently be condemned according to Justice. <B>No matter how much God wants them to be exalted, there's absolutely </B><I><B>nothing </B></I><B>he can do to force them to fall under Mercy.</B> No matter how much a doctor may want his children to become doctors themselves, if <I>they</I> refuse to attend medical school and study, they will <I>never</I> become doctors<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >.64</FONT></div> <div>      If God is a holy and all-good God, he can't also be an “Evil” God. If “Good and Evil” were contingent upon him, he becomes <I>responsible</I> for the existence of Evil. The <I>only</I> way to preserve him being holy and good is to view “Good and Evil” as uncreated, i.e., God didn't create Good and Evil. Since “Evil” is the violation of “Good” and both of them are uncreated, this means the “Law of Justice” (logical consequences) is also uncreated and has eternal repercussions (i.e., the moment a creature engages in “Evil” or violates “Good” he is<I> eternally</I> condemned. He can never remove his condemnation. Nothing he can do could ever erase an already condemned state). </div> <div>      Because we sin, or violate “Good” we are condemned according to Justice. If “Good” and “Evil” pre-exist God as “God” and <I>aren't</I> contingent upon him, this means God has to respect the “Law of Justice” and can <I>never</I> disregard or destroy it.<B> He can never exalt anyone who's committed “sin.”</B> The <I>only way</I> to help those who've committed “sin” is by <I>substitution.</I> A <I>sinless</I> (one who's never violated “Good”) <I>ontologically superior</I> being needed to <I>substitute</I> himself to enable the guilty to be free. This substitute needed to be ontologically superior to those he's substituting for to enable more than one to receive benefit from the substitution or else only one guilty being could be saved.</div> <div>      It is amazing to me that the Christian concept of a sinless “Man” who is also “God” is the <I><B>only</B></I><B> possibility</B> of redeeming sinful humans. In other words, God can't save anyone if Jesus didn't do what we believe he did. The causality is incontestable because if God <I>could</I>; “Good” and “Evil” need to be contingent upon him. If this is the case, God ends up being an “Evil” God because he then would be responsible for the existence of Evil.</div> <div>      Furthermore, the Atonement of Jesus Christ can only make sense if “Good” and “Evil” are uncreated and are outside the scope of God's jurisdiction. <I>The premise that “Good” and “Evil” are contingent upon an all-good all-powerful God is logically indefensible.</I> </div> <div>      “Good” and “Evil” have to be uncreated. They can't be contingent upon God. This means God has to abide by an eternal law. The eternal nature of “Good” and “Evil” means the violations of “Good” carries eternal consequences (Law of Justice) which can only be pacified by the Law of Mercy which pays the price of the offended law. The only way for Mercy to exist is by a superior innocent being than those who committed the violation to take upon himself the punishments demanded by the offended law.</div> <div>      Would you give a billion people a better life than what they currently have on the condition you would torture your young son? Is it good to hurt the innocent to have a better life? What would you want in exchange for torturing your son? And yet, this is what God and Jesus Christ went through for us.</div> <div>      The uncreated  “Good” and “Evil” with the uncreated Law of Justice explains why Jesus Christ's Atonement was necessary. <B>God couldn't save anyone without Jesus substituting himself for the consequences of the sins of others.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Foreknowledge + Causality vs Predestination</B></div> <bR> <div>      At the very moment the universe was created, it's end was immediately known to God because of his control over the different kinds of information transfer. Any modification of parts of the universe not initially planned changes its history with the law of causality being destroyed. God has to allow the course of history to flow as he intended (Rev  6:9-11; Luke  18:7-8).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >65</FONT> He knew Hitler would be responsible for the death and suffering of millions of innocent people. Why didn't he destroy him before he came into power? Why didn't he modify him to make him a normal person or even into a righteous man? </div> <div>      Changing the past changes the future. It's easy for us to distinguish the past from the future but what we view as the past isn't the same as God. Our present is his past. Our future is his past because he knows every detail of everything in our future. God interfering with evil and preventing it from occurring in areas it was originally supposed to occur will destroy the universe. God didn't create the universe and then think about creating the earth. He planned everything before creating the universe. He already knew how the people of the earth will act and react before the  Big Bang. He knew what I would do when presented with a choice last week before creating the universe. Just as various organizations use computers to simulate effects or structures by inputting certain variables before actually performing the event or creating the object; God did the same thing before actually creating the universe. We plan the construction of a building by taking all factors into consideration, and also create various “what if” models to see which best suits the location and will of the owners. Same with God. Each incident that changes the  causality of mankind or the universe has already been followed by God to its conclusion (Rev  6:9-11) ensuring any modification doesn't destroy its  causality. Everything that has happened to me, to you, to mankind, to the universe has occurred in accordance with God's will and leads to the fulfillment of his great plan.<B> Nothing we do will take God by surprise since he already knew beforehand what our choice will be. </B></div> <div>      Picture secretly recording the life of an individual over a couple of years and learn all that person did for those years. Now, travel back in time to when you first began filming. You know what that person's going to do for the next few years. <I>You know everything he's going to do</I>. Your knowledge doesn't destroy the subject's  free-will<I> provided he's kept ignorant</I> of your knowledge and any interference you do<I> maintains the causality of his life</I>. Meaning, if you recorded him getting mugged walking home, you don't interfere to prevent this evil taking place despite it's in your power since you know the result of his being mugged is he's going to meet his future wife at the hospital emergency. Preventing this evil from befalling him destroys the causality of his life. He never gets to meet his wife, his children will never be born, and so forth. Interference is only possible when the interference is the only way the causality of his life is maintained. If you record him falling off a cliff but grabbing on a rope, saving his life, but there isn't a rope at the site an hour before his fall, you have to intervene and put a rope there before he falls or else he'll die. Your inaction destroys the  causality of his life and the recording you made of his life lost its impeccability. </div> <div>      God has “recordings” of all of our lives. No interference is done if the result changes our destiny from what's recorded.<I> </I><B>It's never predestination.</B><I> </I>We always had  free-will but our decisions and actions in the future are already known by God, before we were even born. <I>Knowledge </I>of our future choices destroys our free-agency, hence the  memory loss of our pre-existence. Just because God knew what I ate this morning before he created the universe billions of years ago doesn't mean I lost my free-will. </div> <bR> <div>   How could God's knowledge of the future invalidate my free-agency? <I>As long as I'm kept ignorant of my future and the causality of my life isn't altered</I>, my free-agency is never violated.</div> <bR> <div>      If I created a time machine and traveled 1,000 years into the past and killed a soldier who was about to kill a child, I altered history. It appears to be a good thing to save this child's life but the consequences of interfering could have devastating effects on mankind's fate. If I didn't kill this soldier he would've lived for twenty more years and would've had a child ten years later who was an ancestor of Mozart and another child a year later who was an ancestor of St. Francis of Assisi. My actions, although laudable, irreversibly alters mankind in ways we can't imagine. Those who would've met at Mozart presentations, get married and raise families, wouldn't. Those who would be inspired by St. Francis to enter the priesthood, wouldn't. </div> <bR> <div> <B>God's will and free agency</B></div> <bR> <div>      God must respect  free agency to achieve the greatest good. He must allow opposition, pain and evil. He has the power to force us to be righteous (since the War in Heaven would've never occurred if he couldn't) but he doesn't since to do so violates the free agency of man. Free agency  is essential for exaltation. If God could have simply blinked us into perfection, he would've done it if he were omnipotent! But the Scriptures don't teach of such a God.</div> <div>      God  wants us to be righteous. He wants us to be obedient. However, his will must be clearly identified. There is a distinction between a<I> desire</I> and an <I>intention. </I>God <I>desires</I> us to follow him. He <I>desires </I>to gather his people (Matt  23:37). Jesus <I>wants/desires</I> to give mankind eternal life but mankind won't do what's needed to receive it (John  5:40-43). Jesus<I> wanted</I> his family and country to accept him and be saved but they rejected him (Matt  13:54-58; John  1:11). If Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ <I>intend</I> to save mankind, no one could resist their will or coercion (Job  23:13-14; Dan  4:35; Morm  8:26; D&C  38:22,33;  76:3) and all will be saved. Evil won't exist and free will is absent. But since free will and evil exist,<I> God's will is a desire instead of an intention.</I></div> <bR> <div>   2 Ne<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 2:26-27 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And<I> because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, </I>save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore<I>, men are free according to the flesh</I>; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And <I>they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil</I>; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.</div> <bR> <div>   Hela <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>14:30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that<I> whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.</I></div> <bR> <div>   D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>58:26-33 For behold, <I>it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant;</I> wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say,<I> men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. </I>And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. But<I> he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned</I>. Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments? Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled? <I>I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.</I> Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.</div> <bR> <div>      God gave man  free will. We have the freedom to choose righteousness or wickedness and receive the consequences of our choice. God loves us, his children, and wishes for us to become like him. Being imperfect, we err and are then condemned according to Justice and can only be saved according to Mercy. <B>Jesus Christ accepts the punishment of Justice while granting Mercy to those he chooses.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Mortality is a school</B></div> <bR> <div>      The Mormon version of Jesus, though doing the same actions and fulfilling the same role as in Traditional Christianity (i.e. providing an atonement for sins), makes much more sense when considered in light of Mormon cosmology. It views the earth as a  “university” for self-existent intelligences, while Traditional Theism's “God” doesn't <I>need </I>to be incarnated and atone for our sins.</div> <div>      Jesus Christ is a self-existing intelligence so great that he is God without undergoing this earthly education. He was able to endure the pain that the Law of Justice requires of the guilty. All mankind benefits from Christ's sacrifice. Those who fully accept Christ's  sacrifice  are saved by Mercy with the demands of Justice being satisfied. <I>Justice </I> <I>always inflicts the punishment demanded for sin whether on us directly or on Jesus as a substitute, if, we qualify for his grace by his mercy.</I></div> <div>      Those who accept this through faith in  Christ and continual repentance become more fully educated, and “graduate” from this earthly university. They become  “God/Gods/gods” themselves, continuing the process with other s elf-existent intelligences.</div> <div>      The remainder of humans receive some measure of eternal glory and an eternity of a glorified material nature.</div> <div>      <I>Unlike other views of Christ, the Mormon version provides actual motivation for the Atonement.</I> God was required to send Jesus to perform the Atonement to  satisfy Justice and create  Mercy. Any other view causes us to condemn God as cruel and unworthy of worship. He saves a few and dooms many, when really, he is to blame. The Mormon view of Christ, as one who preserves the process of eternal education, provides a real reason to thank Jesus.</div> <div>      The whole Mormon plan of salvation provides impetus for man to be grateful, to learn and to progress. It exalts the noble elements in man.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Free will and God</B></div> <bR> <div>      Some claim evil is the result of  free-will and God values  free-will above all else. He wants to be worshiped by beings that freely love him and choose the good.</div> <div>      There are ten basic problems with this argument:</div> <bR> <div> A) In a `round about' way, one ends up agreeing God isn't omnipotent.</div> <div> B) It doesn't account for physical evil that isn't willed by humans.</div> <div> C) It doesn't take into consideration the fact pain and misery aren't the only way to influence beings.</div> <div> D)  Social,  economic and  political freedom don't require  theological freedom, but would be better if there wasn't  theological freedom.</div> <div> E) It can produce callousness to human misery.</div> <div> F) It elevates free will above the combined moral evil, the eternal punishment of the wicked and the pain and misery they inflict upon others.</div> <div> G) It denies God's omniscience, omnibenevolence and responsible nature.</div> <div> H) It fails to account for humanity's bias for evil.</div> <div> I) It doesn't justify God's inaction of preventing evil from occurring when he is in a position to prevent it.</div> <div> J) It doesn't absolve God of being ultimately responsible for the existence of a painful and evil world.</div> <bR> <div> Answer A:  </div> <div>      One unwittingly places severe limitations on God. He would be unable to preserve freedom while eliminating evil. Freedom does not necessarily presume the existence of evil, yet the implication is God couldn't create free beings without allowing evil. Furthermore, if free will is compatible with some evil and some good, logically, it should be compatible with complete evil and complete good. It is logically possible for a perfectly free being to always freely choose the good or to always freely choose the evil. </div> <bR> <div>      God= has  free will= completely good. </div> <div>      Satan=has free will= completely evil.</div> <bR> <div>      The term “freedom” has been taken in at least two ways. It can mean “the absence of all restraints” or it can mean “the absence of external restraints.” I believe that the former meaning is nonsensical. All sentient actions are at least influenced by the nature of the actors. The nature of a thing is determined by the set of its properties. A thing without properties defies the nature of a “thing.” However influenced a person might be by his nature, we would still consider him “free” if there were no external restraints on his nature. For example, imagine that there are two paths before you. One leads through a meadow and the other leads through a forest. Nothing is forcing you to go either way so you choose the left path because, to you, the trees look prettier than the meadow. You have made a free choice. This is irrespective of the fact that your preference for trees over grass is part of your nature. God is in the same situation. Nobody is restraining him yet he chooses to do good because it is his nature to do so.</div> <div>      Would it be unreasonable for God to have created us with better natures? It is perfectly logical that, presuming he is omnipotent and presuming he really does prefer freedom, he could've created us with moral natures such as his own.<I> If he really is </I> <I>omnipotent, he should be able to create free beings and eliminate sin at the same time. </I>Out of respect for freedom, he could have removed all external restraints. <I>Thus we could have been perfectly free beings who always freely chose the right</I>.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >66</FONT></div> <div>      The point here is that in either scenario, if we are merely creatures who were created solely by the sovereign will of God, we are simply what God made us. Freedom, by itself, explains nothing. <I>In a universe dependent on God, God receives all the glory but also retains all the blame.  </I></div> <div>      This is the ultimate genius of the Mormon vision. God is not the creator of intelligence. It is self-existent, co-eternal with God. It makes everything else so much more meaningful. It is only natural for us to want a “big God” who could fix everything, but such a vision of God must logically, always collapse. </div> <bR> <div> Answer B:  </div> <div>      The  free-will defense also falls apart because it only attempts to account for evil that is  human in origin. If we can agree that  physical evil (undeserved suffering) is wickedness, then the argument falls apart. Why do millions of children suffer agonizing deaths from cancer and other diseases? Why does the earthquake destroy the orphanage? Why do animals feel terror and pain? Animals have experienced pain for millions of years prior to the arrival of man. Why do carnivores exist who eat other animals who are capable of feeling terror and pain?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >67</FONT> There is no human will involved in these innocents. In the world of Traditional Theism,  they are simply the result of God's will. God could prevent them, but chooses not to. </div> <bR> <div> Objections:</div> <bR> <div> 1) Physical evil is needed to be contrasted with physical good.</div> <div> 2) Physical evil is God's punishment.</div> <div> 3) Physical evil is God's warning.</div> <div> 4) Physical evil is due to the laws of nature.</div> <div> 5) Physical evil makes the world a better place.</div> <bR> <div> #1 The contrast is invalid since only a minuscule amount of evil is necessary to illustrate the contrast instead of the massive amount that exists. One does not need a massive amount of “red” to contrast the reality of “blue.” It's true if everything was “blue,” we wouldn't know what “blue” is, but to know what it is, only a speck of “red” is needed for the contrast to be valid.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >68</FONT></div> <div> #2 How can the suffering of children, the handicapped or other innocent such as the animals be the result of God's punishment? What did the baby do to deserve having a birth defect? (John  9:2)<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >69</FONT> God's punishment can be just if only the wicked suffer.</div> <div> #3 It is puzzling why God would need to warn people by using physical evil when <I>physical evil is one of the main reasons why people turn away from God.</I> Why doesn't an omnipotent all-good God use more persuasive methods such as miracles, divine revelation, sending angels, etc. since they are more effective?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >70</FONT></div> <div> #4 The problem with this is God is the one who created the universe and consequently is ultimately responsible for these natural laws. If he is truly omnipotent, he surely could've made the laws of the universe less conducive to evil and pain.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >71</FONT> Some may claim he doesn't actually cause the evil and pain. However, he does, at the very least, set in motion the chain of causes that ultimately result in these events.</div> <div> #5 The problem with this argument is “it tells us nothing about <I>how much</I> evil will enrich this particular universe, and how much will be too much.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >72</FONT> It merely gives the possibility that <I>some</I> evil may be necessary. There isn't any question some physical evil results in good that wouldn't have occurred if the physical evil didn't occur. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes or floods are physical evils and result in death, pain and suffering. They also cause heroism, bravery, charity, self-sacrifice, etc. that wouldn't have occurred if the natural evil didn't occur. The issue is, “Was the  physical evil justified by the moral good that resulted from its occurrence?” Is “physical evil + moral good” better than “physical good + moral good”? What about the occurrences of all the physical evils that don't result in moral good simply because no one was around to witness and cause moral good?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >73 </FONT></div> <div>      Also, if  physical evil is necessary to make the world a better place, this would mean we shouldn't attempt to reduce or eliminate  physical evil or else we're reducing the moral good that would occur. This would also mean if our goal is to increase the total amount of moral good in the world, we must increase the total amount of physical evil instead of reducing it.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >74</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Answer C:</div> <div>      Receiving punishment by pain and misery for wrong decisions and actions aren't the only way to influence beings. Receiving warning prior to committing sin maintains the person's free-will since the beings can commit sin if they wish inasmuch as God doesn't prevent it, just gives notice when it's about to occur. We could do the right, avoid sin, and avoid experiencing the effects of evil. Another that is equally effective in directing beings would be to receive happiness and having its strength reduced when one makes the wrong decision or about to do wrong.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >75</FONT> </div> <bR> <div> Answer D:</div> <div>      Theological  freedom is often confused with  religious, political, economic or social freedom.  None of us want to be forced by others or by the state to believe a particular faith we don't believe in. None of us wants our freedom of speech, travel or right to make a living, curtailed by the government. We realize that these freedoms carry a price that other more totalitarian forms of government would stamp out such as civil unrest, the right to nonconformity, to criticize, to political and social involvement and activism.</div> <div>      The problem is theological freedom, the ability to disobey God's will,<I> causes the violations of these other freedoms</I>. If humans couldn't disobey God's will, there would be greater social, political, religious and economic freedom wherever humans exist <I>since limitations of these freedoms result from disobedience to God's will</I>.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >76</FONT></div> <div>      If God is truly omnipotent, he could've made us and the world having all aspects that give righteous enjoyment but lacking in theological freedom. We would've had the same enjoyment (family, friends, work, sports, sex, music, food, arts, etc.) but wouldn't have things caused by disobedience to God's will (crime, violence, hatred, greed, etc.). “The world could indeed have been a paradise.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >77</FONT></div> <div>      Some may say we need genuine theological freedom to truly enjoy the knowledge of avoidance of sin. “The answer to this claim is that, by hypothesis, God could have made it so that we <I>thought</I> we were genuinely free, even though we were not ... Only God would know that we were not really free. The only one who would lose any genuine value would therefore be God ... The only one who really benefits from the presence of creaturely freedom <I>vis-à-vis</I> God is, accordingly, God.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >78</FONT></div> <bR> <div>   “Can we unambivalently praise the goodness of a creator who unilaterally created a carcinogenic and holocaust world instead of a paradise if that creator is the only one who benefits from this choice?”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >79</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Answer E:</div> <div>      It causes some to think that we shouldn't aid those in suffering. Some would reason that since God isn't making any visible effort to aid those in suffering to get out of those situations, it must be his will for them to suffer. We then shouldn't make any effort to help others since if God didn't want them to suffer, he surely would've prevented their suffering. Since he is also ultimately responsible for the situations of their suffering, their suffering may be due to his will for them to learn patience in adversity or to get other God-like qualities. Any interference on our part would then interfere with God's plans for them.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >80</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Answer F:</div> <div>      If   free-will outweighs the combined  moral evil and its consequences, it will logically outweigh the moral evil of beings in a world that always freely chooses evil. Why then the biblical message about the Flood? God's reasons for wiping out humanity was due to their always freely choosing evil (Gen  6:5,11-13). If free-will was more important to God than the offense of moral evil, the Flood story would never have been written. Which is better, a universe that has rational creatures that always freely chooses evil, or, a universe that has rational creatures without free-will but always live righteous lives?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >81</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Answer G:</div> <div>      This thinking denies the omniscience and omnibenevolence of God. He was in the position to choose the best possible outcome of the universe prior to actually creating it, by following the causality of our lives to the very end. Why didn't he follow the mental simulation that showed all of us living lives of righteousness while having free-will? If he is a responsible God, he surely would've made simulations of our universe prior to actually creating it. He had all eternity to create the best possible universe. Couldn't God create a universe where the Holocaust never happened while maintaining our free-will? Why then did we get stuck with this universe?</div> <bR> <div> Answer H:</div> <div>      Why do we have a bias to sin? We simply can't blame Adam and Eve because (1) They disobeyed prior to partaking of the forbidden fruit (which partaking was the <I>consequence</I> of their bias to sin) and (2) God's omniscience means he knew Adam and Eve were going to sin (and how) <I>before </I>placing them in the garden. By placing them in such a situation he knew they were going to fall makes him culpable. Traditional Theism's God is responsible for humanity's  bias for evil, since he could've created man with a strong bias for good.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >82</FONT></div> <bR> <div> Answer I:</div> <div>      The free-will argument doesn't justify God's inactions in preventing evil to occur and neither does it justify God's allowance of the continuance of evil. Any righteous being who has the ability to prevent the innocent victims to suffer and be murdered but allows it to occur because of his inaction is responsible to some extent for the evil that occurred. If I was in a position to prevent a child being tortured and murdered but allowed it to happen, I am guilty of a grievous sin. How much more for an omnipotent God, even if he respects the free-will of the evil-doer?</div> <bR> <div> Answer J:</div> <div>      The  free-will argument doesn't justify God creating a sinful and painful world. If he is truly omnipotent, he surely could've made a world without evil and pain but capable of being a school for obedience. At the very least, he surely could've given us free-will and reduce the amount of evil that resulted from the exercise of free-will.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >83</FONT> Why do evil and pain exist? If pain is to warn us, why doesn't it shut off after we are warned? Evil and pain aren't necessary if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. A society doesn't need to inflict pain to reform offenders. It doesn't need to inflict evil and pain to punish those who transgress its laws. <I>If a corrupt and fallible society doesn't need to create such an environment for civil obedience, how much more for an omnipotent all-good God?</I></div> <bR> <div>      Some may say it isn't really free-will that's important but the good that arises from the exercise of free-will. </div> <div>      A problem with this line of reasoning is it encourages us to put ourselves in situations where we can be tempted for evil so that we can overcome it.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >84</FONT> Another problem is it overlooks God's omniscience. He would know the vast majority of us will fall when tempted.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >85</FONT></div> <div>      A methodical examination of the different issues relating to free-will shows <B>the traditional free-will arguments </B> <B>can't resolve the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God with the existence of evil</B>,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >86</FONT> despite the free-will argument initially appears plausible.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >87</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Omnipotent all-good God and the sinful world</B></div> <bR> <div>      Some may claim God doesn't want to prevent all evil because he wants us to learn for ourselves just like any good parent does.</div> <div>      This only makes sense if the “parent” is not omnipotent. Real parents don't create the ontological nature of their children out of nothing. Real parents aren't able to “blink” their children into perfection. Real parents <I>need </I>to let their children make mistakes. This is not the case with an omnipotent being.</div> <div>      Furthermore, comparing real evil to juvenile mistakes is not realistic. Would the Holocaust, etc., be “minor mistakes” that a “loving parent” lets his children go through even though he could prevent it? The “eternal perspective” arguments don't work. Try telling that to a Jew who's been in a box car for a week filled with feces and urine, having been stripped naked and then having her hair shaved before “delousing.” Tell it to the earthly parent whose child is suffering from cancer. Tell it to the person crushed in a collapsed building during an earthquake who suffers for days before dying.</div> <div>      Some claim God allows sin to show his wisdom and glory. This is actually answered by  Pierre Bayle who pointed out this is like a father who allows his children to break their legs in order for him to show everyone his skill in mending their broken bones or like a king who allows sedition and unrest in his kingdom so he can gain glory by overcoming them.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >88</FONT></div> <div>      If an intelligent rational person were to determine the existence of God based on what he sees in the world, what kind of God would he think exists? Would he come to believe in an infinite omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, when observing the visible existence of human suffering and the presence of evil?<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >89</FONT></div> <bR> <div>   “... much of the suffering in the world produces not virtue but its opposite. Poverty and hunger, especially because they are unequally distributed, often lead to crime and war rather than to industry and cooperation. A lack of material necessities often lead to preoccupation with material things rather than to a spiritual outlook. Debilitating illness often leads to despair and bitterness rather than to hope. Much suffering seems so pointless that it leads to atheism  rather than to faith. The way of the world is often so cruel that it leads human beings to curse the universe and its creator rather than to love them. And so on. If the creator set up the world to produce virtuous beings, the plan seems to have backfired on a massive scale suggesting incompetence.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >90</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Conclusion</B></div> <bR> <div>      There are only three logical choices for those who reject Mormon theology:</div> <bR> <div> 1) <B>They must deny God being all-powerful</B>. It would then appear that God only created the good in the universe. The evil must have originated from somewhere or something else. God is unable to eliminate <I>any</I> evil.</div> <div> 2) <B>They must deny God being all-good</B>. This would result in God being comprised of evil as well as good. God wouldn't be the holy and pure being Traditional Theism  thinks he is.</div> <div> 3) <B>They must deny the reality of evil</B>. Evil then doesn't exist. There are no real sins or wrongs.</div> <div>      Scholars have known for centuries the traditional view of God is unable to be reconciled with the existence of physical and moral evil in the world. They haven't been able to solve it because they are mistaken about their underlying assumptions of who or what God is and our relationship with God.</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="581" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP ROWSPAN=2 HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="169"><div> <B>SUBJECT</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP COLSPAN=2 WIDTH="395"><div> <B>CONSEQUENCES OF</B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> <B>ACCEPTANCE</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> <B>DENIAL</B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 38 WIDTH="169"><div>  <B>Pre-existence</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> God is not responsible for undeserved suffering</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> God is responsible for undeserved suffering</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 57 WIDTH="169"><div> <B>Uncreated Intelligence</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> God is not responsible for our failures and evil deeds</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> God is responsible for our failures and evil deeds</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="169"><div> <B>Eternity of Good and Evil</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> God is not responsible for the existence of evil</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> God is responsible for the existence of evil</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="169"><div> <B>God can't destroy the Law of Justice</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> The Atonement of Christ makes sense</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> The Atonement of Christ doesn't makes sense</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="169"><div> <B>Omnipotent only means “All-powerful”</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="178"><div> “God is Omnipotent” is consistent with reality</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="214"><div> “God is Omnipotent” isn't consistent with reality</div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <div>      These five unique features of Mormon theology and the consequences and associations of these beliefs resolve the strongest logical objections of atheism against the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. This means <B>any religious faith that contains these beliefs is more logical and intellectually consistent than atheism.</B></div> <div>      If any of these theological concepts are wrong, one ends up with a God that doesn't logically equate with the existence of physical and moral evil.</div> <div>      To summarize:</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">God is not responsible for our failures since he didn't create our natures. We are uncreated  intelligences that are co-eternal with God.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">We existed as adult spirit beings prior to mortality and chose to accept the circumstances of our mortal lives.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">All Life existed as spirit beings prior to mortality and knew they would experience evil, pain, suffering and fear before coming to the earth. They agreed to experience such in exchange for an eternal possession of a material nature.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Good and evil are eternal and pre-exist God as God.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">God is omnipotent only in the sense of being “all-powerful.” If no power exists that can do something God can't do, this inability of God doesn't negate from his omnipotence.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">God allows sin and evil to occur to keep his agreement with the victims in the  pre-existence.</div> <div> <IMG BORDER="0" SRC="WP M1a7f008200f000000000.gif" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="16" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> We are here on the earth to be tested and tried in order for us to become like God.</div> <bR> <div>      All of these items demonstrate Mormonism is the only faith that doesn't have a conflict between the existence of evil and an all-good all-powerful God. </div> <div>      This study has demonstrated <B>Mormonism solves the greatest logical objection atheism </B> <B>has against the existence of God</B>. The point of this study is our critics don't need to accept these Mormon doctrines as true. <I>Regardless of the truthfulness of these doctrines, they are logically consistent and logically valid and satisfactorily resolve the greatest logical argument of atheism.</I> </div> <div>      If Mormonism is wrong and these unique features of Mormon theology are also wrong, how does the Christian anti-Mormon <I>validly</I> solve the problem of evil? The greatest minds of Traditional Theism have been unsuccessful in solving the problem of evil for millennia. What non-Mormon faith can even come close to solving this dilemma?</div> <div>      Careful contemplation and intellectual consistency demonstrates Mormonism is the only religious belief system that can actually refute atheism.</div> <div>      God can't be omnipotent in the classical sense and at the same time be all-good.  God didn't create Satan out of nothing, who became the source of evil. Satan's intelligence is co-eternal with God. Evil (and Good) have always existed instead of originating from Satan. All undeserved  suffering we receive in mortality is due to our agreeing to it before being born. All who suffer upon the earth decided to have such a lot in life in exchange for a perceived greater good. </div> <div>      Bemoaning the hardships we receive in mortality and blaming God for them is misplaced since <I>we are the ones who chose to live the life we have. </I>We knew in advance the circumstances and relations of our lives and yet we agreed to such a mortality because we believed in ourselves. We believed we could overcome such obstacles and progress to the next superior level of our potential and be exalted. </div> <bR> <div>   Don't blame God. You chose to live the life you have. You believed you could handle your mortal life. You knew how difficult it was going to be but you chose it and understood that you can become like Heavenly Father if you lived your life the way he wanted. </div> <bR> <div>      The conspicuous <I>logical</I> conclusion of on whom the responsibility of evil lies is vastly different in Mormonism than in Traditional Theism.  As can be seen, the Mormon view of God, the uncreated intelligence, the p re-existent state of all life and the eternal existence of Good and Evil solves the dilemma of  theodicy very nicely, and show the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church.</div> <div>      The much maligned Joseph Smith's contribution of the general pre-existence of all life, the uncreated intelligence, the uncreated “Good” and “Evil” and the inability of God to destroy the Law of Justice solves the greatest problem of theistic belief. <B>These four axioms by themselves, are enough to acclaim him the greatest religious genius America has ever produced </B>since millennia of effort by Traditional Theism has been unable to effectively resolve the problem of evil. </div> <div>      I am in awe of the man. His other contributions only enhance his stature as an authentic prophet of God.</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]:</B></div> <bR> <div> 1.See MM.</div> <div> 2.This topic is derived from a study created by Arden Eby. I asked and he kindly consented to my “stealing” it from him. I have modified and added to it to conform with my personal views. I also highly recommend<I> The Problem of Evil</I> (Michael Peterson, Editor); <I>God and Evil</I> (Nelson Pike, Editor) and <I>Evil Revisited</I> (David Ray Griffin) for those who wish to understand this issue further.</div> <div> 3.ER. pp. 4,22.</div> <div> 4.GE. p. 47.</div> <div> 5.PE. p. 3.</div> <div> 6.Ibid. pp. 3-5.</div> <div> 7.DCNR. pp. 111-112.</div> <div> 8.PE. p. 111. In my mind, Plantinga furnishes the best reply to this problem, however he has to make assumptions that place limitations on God's omnipotence to do so. This is also based on the assumption good is opposed to evil that it will eliminate evil as best it can. </div> <div> 9. Jesus received the worst imaginable pain and suffering when he atoned for our sins but his atonement was the best possible thing for us. Despite the pain and suffering he experienced was evil, his suffering was a great good because of its <I>consequences.</I> There is a big difference between <I>necessary</I> suffering and <I>unnecessary</I> suffering.</div> <div> 10.Adapted from GE. p. 1.</div> <div> 11.Ibid. p. 1.</div> <div> 12.HG. p. 376 “If this God is omnipotent, he could have prevented the Holocaust. If he was unable to stop it, he is impotent and useless; if he could have stopped it and chose not to, he is a monster.” cf. OM. p. 23 “... such a God is simply intolerable, since he must be either crazy or irresponsible if his benign omnipotence was compatible with the death camps.”</div> <div> 13.The Greek word “<I>proorizo</I>” (4309/4633) which has been translated as “predestination” is mentioned six times in the Bible (Acts  4:28; Rom  8:29-30; 1 Cor  2:7; Eph  1:5,11) but the Calvinistic view of predestination eliminates man's free will and creates an evil God who tortures people over things that aren't their fault but God's. He never gave them a chance to accept him and his Gospel but tortures them anyway. These passages must be viewed in relation with  God's omniscience. He knows all that will happen, until the end of time. Consequently, he knows who will be saved and who won't. The real problem is letting certain Protestants define the word. It isn't possible to interpret “predestination” to mean “God chooses certain people to be saved and chooses to damn others irrespective of our actions in mortality.” Why bother doing good when our decisions don't change anything and have no consequences upon our eternal salvation? Why did Paul and the other missionaries bother to spread the Word of God if it wasn't needed? Why bother having faith and needing to accept Jesus as our Savior if we are saved regardless of our actions?  <I>Salvation is always conditional upon our obedience</I> and it is man's free will that determines his eternal condition. The Scriptures must be taken as a whole and its numerous demands on man's  free agency (such as repentance, accepting Jesus Christ, having faith, etc.) with God constantly encouraging us to be righteous invalidates Augustine and  John Calvin's claim that “ predestination” is an irrevokable choice of God that can't be altered. </div> <div>      Predestination and the passages that imply divine intent and manipulation [instead of desire] (such as Gen  21:12; Ex  9:16;  33:19; Deut  10:15;  32:8; Josh  11:20; 2 Chr  10:15; Ps  33:12; Jer  1:5; Luke  22:22; John  6:37,44;  12:39-40;  15:16;  17:2; Acts  13:48;  17:26; Rom  9:10-26;  11:5; 2 Th  2:13; 2 Tim  1:9; Tit  1:1-2; 1 Pet  1:2) can only be legitimately interpreted within the boundaries of man's free agency and God's fore-knowledge. God chose (foreordained/predestined) certain people to be his elect. He promises them great glory and eternal life before mortality because of their valiance to him in the  pre-existence all the while maintaining their freedom to choose. If they choose to disobey him in mortality, God's pronounced blessing is removed (1 Sam  2:30-31; Jer  18:7-10) and they can't be saved. Regardless of what some scriptural passages may say,<I> this is a logical problem</I> or else the Bible is contradictory due to the illogicality of the existence of evil with an all-good all-powerful God. </div> <div> I have yet to meet a Christian who believes in predestination who believes he or she is predestined to be damned to an eternity of torture in hell regardless of their best efforts to love and obey Jesus. <I>Somehow, they are all predestined to salvation</I>. On the assumption this Calvinist belief in  predestination is true, <I>how do they know they are the ones who are predestined to eternal life</I>? Just because they believe they are predestined doesn't mean they are the ones mentioned in the Bible.</div> <bR> <div> 14.DCNR. pp. 108-109.</div> <div> 15.For a detailed and devastating refutation of this theodicy see MM. pp. 413-435.</div> <div> 16.Ibid. p. 443.</div> <div> 17.Ibid. p. 443.</div> <div> 18.Ibid. p. 444.</div> <div> 19.Ibid. pp. 444-445, 447.</div> <div> 20.For a very good refutation of all of the theodicies numbered 5-10 see Ibid. pp. 436-452. </div> <div> 21.Taken from ER. pp. 11-12.</div> <div> 22.I use the word “nature” throughout this study in reference to the decision-making character/disposition of man and not in the sense of species/genus/bodily or genetic essence. </div> <div> 23.TPJS. p. 353. cf. OM. p. 209 “The Kabbalistic <I>neshamah</I> is very close to, almost identical with, the Gnostic spark, or <I>pneuma</I>, which is no part of the created world, but is as old as God, indeed is part or particle of God.”</div> <div> 24.The Scriptures are silent on whether the “intelligence” state is a “rational self-aware” state (capable of rational thought, knowledge of right and wrong, logical consequences, awareness of the passage of time, having desire, joy, loss and guilt, etc.) or a “nonrational self-aware” state (fuzzy awareness of own existence, no sense of time, no rational ability, no moral capability). It describes different levels of “smartness” intelligences have (Abr  3:18-21) which seems to imply a rational self-aware state. On the other hand, this may simply imply smartness is an innate ability without rational self-awareness or sense of time (somewhat similar to the different capabilities of various computers) and intelligences are merely self-aware without having rational thought.</div> <div>      I personally believe uncreated intelligences are in a “nonrational self-aware” state which is more consistent with the view that all life has spiritual existence built around uncreated intelligence and all nonlife also has uncreated intelligence at their core of existence. This means I believe intelligences are morally <I>neutral. </I>They are neither “good” nor “evil.” </div> <div>      Did God know in advance a particular intelligence was going to become “good” or “evil” the moment they were bestowed rationality when becoming spirit entities? In other words, would an all-good God <I>deliberately</I> make an evil creature, one that will receive “eternal” punishment but wouldn't if God didn't give them rationality? This is difficult to determine because there are benefits associated with having physicality <I>even if </I>the entity receives punishment for evil deeds.  For me, God <I>didn't</I> know if a particular intelligence was going to become “good” or “evil” prior to organizing them into spirit entities. He had <I>no way of knowing</I> whether an uncreated intelligence would become “good” or “evil” when becoming rational in an environment containing <I>genuine</I> free-agency. This preserves his all-good nature while diminishing his all-knowing nature just a little bit.<I> If no entity anywhere</I> can know in advance if an uncreated intelligence would turn out “good” or “evil” when becoming rational in a genuine free-agency environment; God's inability to know the same thing doesn't detract from his omniscient or all-knowing nature.</div> <div> The Scriptures describe the punishment of the truly wicked as if the wicked are aware of their punishment. However, an eternity of unremitting torture conflicts with the idea of a loving, merciful and just God. It is surely more loving, merciful and just of God to torture the truly wicked for a time and then put them out of their misery by eliminating their knowledge and revert them back to the “intelligence” state if he has the power to destroy our bodies and our spirits (Matt  10:28) [although I do realize the parallel text in Luke  12:4-5 describes this death to mean being cast into hell instead of annihilation]. This means I believe God gives all evil beings a choice. Do they wish to remain rational with the awareness of their guilt and failures but possessing the joy associated with being incorporeal spirit entities or having a physical body; or do they wish to revert back to the intelligence state, losing all rationality and consciousness?</div> <bR> <div> 25.My personal view is: God's destruction (not damnation) of complex beings such as incorporeal spirits (Matt  10:28) and material beings (both of whom are rationally self-aware) destroys their complexity and rational self-awareness causing a reverting back to the “intelligence” <I>nonrational</I> self-aware state.</div> <div> 26.2 Ne  2:25 ( 11-26). I understand “joy” to mean “experiencing fecund happiness, righteousness and true goodness, not inevitably followed by unhappiness, pain and wickedness.” This is contrasted with evil, which I understand to mean “the occurrence of pain and suffering that doesn't result in righteous joy and true goodness.”</div> <div> 27.Was partially glimpsed by Eugene Liggitt in TCERK. p. 698 “The absolute origin of evil is hidden or perhaps it has no origin since it is negative instead of positive.”</div> <div> 28.This isn't to say the one is needed for the validity of the other. Evil isn't necessary to be the counterpart for Good since only a small amount of Evil is necessary to contrast the reality of Good instead of the vast amount that currently exists (similar to only a speck of red is needed to contrast (and identify) an ocean of blue (which answers the question: “if everything was blue, how can we know what `blue' is”?) [GE. pp. 50-52, 67]. Furthermore, the statement “Evil is the absence of Good; Good is the absence of Evil” isn't true <I>logically</I> since inanimate objects are morally neutral (e.g., a knife is neither good nor evil <I>by itself.</I> It's moral status depends on how it is used) but scripturally seems possible. “Light” is described as “good” (Gen  1:4), the earth and the waters are “good” (Gen  1:10), plant life is “good” (Gen  1:12), the sun, moon and stars are “good” (Gen  1:18), the animal species are “good” (Gen  1:21,25), all that God created is “good” (Gen  1:31). Conversely, it would seem scripturally possible to claim “Evil is the absence of Good; Good is the absence of Evil.” </div> <div> 29.D&C  19:6-12.</div> <div> 30.My understanding is: Light signifies knowledge; darkness signifies ignorance. Complete brightness signifies full knowledge; complete darkness signifies complete ignorance. The truly evil, like Satan and the demons, will gradually lose whatever knowledge and rationality they have until becoming completely ignorant and losing their “rational self-awareness,” reverting back to the “nonrational self-aware” intelligence state (which is based on what is described in Alma  12:11).</div> <div> 31.The doctrine of the  pre-existence of all living things can be found in the Latter-day Scriptures: </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>29:31-32 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, <I>all things both spiritual</I> and temporal- <I>First spiritual</I>, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and<I> secondly spiritual</I>, which is the last of my work.</div> <bR> <div>   D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>77:2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse? A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air<I>; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual</I>; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also <I>the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.</I></div> <bR> <div>   Mos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 3:5-7 And <I>every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things,</I> of which I have spoken, <I>spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. </I>For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; <I>for in heaven created I them</I>; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; <I>nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word</I>.</div> <bR> <div> These passages show all life has three stages of existence: the pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal.</div> <bR> <div> 32.This explains how all living creatures understand commandments from God and have the ability to obey his will and worship him (Gen  1:20-21; 2 Chr  7:13; Job  39:27; Ezek  39:17; Amos  9:3; Luke  17:6; Rev  5:13;  4:6-9;  5:6-6:7;  7:11-12;  14:3;  15:7;  19:4; Jac  4:6; D&C  29:17-20;  128:23; Mos  2:21-22;  3:19; Abr  4:25). It isn't known for sure to what extent non-human life is based upon uncreated intelligences (i.e., are all spirit beings built around uncreated intelligences?) but the Scriptures seem to support the idea all living things are built around intelligences. Neither is it known what their relationship is with those who became God's spirit children. Neither do we know if there is a cyclical mortal existence of non-human life (I don't think there is). </div> <div> 33.The atonement of Jesus Christ not only encompasses the consequences of all sin that will be committed in the universe, it also covered all the pain and fear that will occur within it. Since non-human life also experiences pain and fear, his sacrifice aids all living things. Their future blessing isn't identical with the sanctified but will be an eternal possession of a glorified material nature. This isn't a compensation for the suffering of innocents but is the fulfillment of the agreement God made with these creatures prior to their mortal existence. I find it hard to accept a loving and just God who gives some measure of blessing to an evil person but doesn't give anything to an innocent animal who suffered. </div> <div> 34.This is an inevitable result of: (1) They have spiritual existence prior to mortality. (2) They have the ability to comprehend communication from God. And (3) The fact Jesus Christ's Atonement gives all Life some benefit of Eternal Good. </div> <div>      Since both humans and non-human life had a  pre-existence and can comprehend communication from God, if we chose the circumstances of our mortal existence in exchange for a greater benefit (e.g., exaltation) isn't it also logically possible that non-human life chose the circumstances of their mortal existence in exchange for participation in the universal Resurrection (Rom   8:21)? This is due to the fact the mere state of corporeality confers benefits to beings who are incorporeal spirits or uncreated intelligences. They experience sensations and pleasures unattainable to incorporeal entities. It is only an inseparable union of spirit with a material nature that confers a “fullness of joy” (D&C  93:33-34).</div> <div> 35.Of all the unique features of Mormonism, this position is initially viewed as the weakest logically until examined and contemplated carefully. Despite the ridicule some heap on such a concept, it does have an incredible amount of scriptural passages that seem to imply such is indeed the case (Gen  6:11-13; Isa  33:9; Rev  19:2; 1 Ne  19:12; D&C  123:7; Mos  7:56;  8:28-30 cf. Gen  1:3-25; Ex  14:21, 26-29; Num  16:30-35;  26:10; Deut  4:26; 11:6;   30:19;  31:28;  32:1; 1 Chr  16:31,33; Job  9:7;  12:8;  20:27; 37:6,10-13; Ps 46:2-3;  50:1;  69:34;  96:11-12;  104:32;  107:25; Isa  5:6;   23:4; 24:5;  44:23;  45:12;  49:13; Jer  4:28; Amos  9:4; Matt  4:3;  8:27;  17:20;  21:21; Mark  4:41;  11:23; Luke  4:3;  8:25;  9:54;  19:40; Rev  12:16; 1 Ne  17:50;  21:13; 2 Ne  15:6; Jac  4:6,9; Hela  12:8-19;  Morm  5:23; Eth  4:9;  12:30; D&C  61:27;  76:1;  84:101;  88:25-26;   128:23; 133:23; Mos  1:25;  7:13;  Mos  2:3-20; Abr  4:3-25 esp. v.  18 and vv.  10,12,21,25).  What is the status of inanimate objects? These passages support the idea that even inanimate matter such as stars, the earth, rocks, water, air, etc. are actually built around uncreated intelligences which explains how inanimate objects appear to be sentient in the Scriptures and can obey commands from God and those who are the valiant followers of Christ. It's possible some of these are merely poetic licenses and anthropomorphisms, but their repetitive consistency seems to negate such a dismissal. This view has similarity to the Gaia hypothesis, the belief that the earth is a living thing. Is the earth a living thing?</div> <bR> <div>   Mos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 7:48-49 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face? And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?</div> <div> 36.TPJS. p. 373. This is the logical consequence from the stance that the Multiverse is infinite and intelligences can't be created nor destroyed.</div> <div> 37.It is unfortunate that the word used to describe this uncreated sentient “thing” is “intelligence” since it is easily confused with what is known as “smartness” or “rationality.”</div> <div> 38.TPJS. p. 354.</div> <div> 39.Matt  10:28 has reference to our  spirits not our intelligence and its parallel text [Luke  12:4-5] describes this destruction as being thrown into hell, not annihilation. But see 4 Mac 13:14-15; OTP. 2:558.</div> <div> 40.The determining factor that separate the two isn't known. However, some assumptions can be made. One is these spirit entities were those beings who possessed an ability to be vastly better than what they were. Another is the spirits who became God's offspring were those who attained consciousness and rational awareness. Still another hypothesis is the spirits who became God's offspring arrived at such a state by some sort of procreation of Heavenly Father with another (who is naturally viewed as “Heavenly Mother”).</div> <div> 41.Intelligences who became living creatures are superior in ability than those who became inanimate matter because they also possess “spirits” in addition to physical forms.</div> <div> 42.See Gen  1:20-21; 1 Ch 16:33; 2 Chr  7:13; Job  39:27; Ps 96:12; Ezek  39:17; Amos  9:3; Luke  17:6; Rev  5:13;  4:6-9;  5:6-6:7;  7:11-12;  14:3;  15:7;  19:4; Jac  4:6; D&C  29:17-20;  128:23; Mos  2:21-22;  3:19; Abr  4:25.</div> <div> 43.See Gen  6:11-13; Isa  33:9; Rev  19:2; 1 Ne  19:12; D&C  123:7; Mos  7:48-49;  7:56;  8:28-30 cf. Gen  1:3-25; Ex  14:21, 26-29; Num  16:30-35;  26:10; Deut  11:6;  4:26;  30:19;  31:28;  32:1; 1 Chr 16:31,33; Job  9:7;  12:8;  20:27;  37:6;  37:10-13; Ps  46:2;  50:1;  69:34;  96:11;  104:32;  107:25; Isa  5:6;   23:4; 24:5;  44:23;  45:12;  49:13; Jer  4:28; Amos  9:4; Matt  4:3;  8:27;  17:20;  21:21; Mark  4:41;  11:23; Luke  4:3;  8:25;  9:54;  19:40; Rev  12:16; 1 Ne  17:50;  21:13; 2 Ne  15:6; Jac  4:6,9; Hela  12:8-19;  Eth  4:9;  12:30; Morm  5:23; D&C  61:27;  76:1;  84:101;  88:25-26;   128:23; 133:23; Mos  1:25;  7:13;  Mos  2:3-20; Abr  4:3-25 esp. v.  18 and vv.  10,12,21,25.</div> <div> 44.TPJS. pp. 351-352.</div> <div> 45.The nature vs nurture quandary is an attempt to answer a basic but very important question: “Why are we what we are?” Why are some predisposed to certain actions and mindsets while others aren't? The “<B>nature</B>” hypothesis uses the notion that there is a biological answer. We are what we are because of our genes which we inherited from our parents. Many identical twins who were adopted by different families have many similar characteristics and inclinations such as liking the same food and color, giving their children the same names, having the same likes and dislikes, humor, temperaments, and psychiatric problems. Many children inherit their parents' talents and abilities like the musical genius of the Bach and Strauss families. The “<B>nurture</B>” hypothesis claims we are the way we are because of our upbringing and because of the environmental circumstances of our lives. Most children who were raised by their parents to live a certain way do tend to carry on such behavioral qualities into their adult life. Most children who were raised to regard other races as inferior to theirs become racists themselves. Most children who were raised to love their neighbors and to live righteously and honorably do tend to live such lives.</div> <div>       The third hypothesis of why we are what we are is the “<B>brain</B>” explanation. This includes brain chemistry (because of the significant effects of various drugs) and the pattern of our neural networks. Due to various stimuli, our brain's neurons link with others, making each person have a unique pattern. The more complex and varied the stimuli, the greater the linkages of the neurons which seems to signify the greater the intelligence of the person (hence why it's a good thing to let babies listen to the complex music of Mozart). Many who've suffer brain-damage experience profound behavioral and personality changes because the original pattern of their neural network were altered. A great deal of work still needs to be done in determining the extent of the influence of this network upon our moral and ethical choices. Some speculate that our moral behavior is either due to brain chemistry or our neural networks but this seems implausible since it doesn't make sense for God to punish the wicked if they can't help being evil, which would be the case if evil behavior comes solely from brain chemistry and our neural network. This would also mean it would be possible to manipulate a person's brain and cause him to become wholly good or wholly evil. The “brain” hypothesis is actually a combination of both “nature” and “nurture.” This can easily be seen by the answers to these two questions: “<I>Why</I> is our brain chemistry what it is?” “<I>Why</I> are our neural networks what they are?”</div> <div>      Most explanations of human personality use all three sources. We are what we are by a combination of the “nature,” “nurture” and “brain” origins. There is simply no doubt that there are biological and chemical explanations for certain predispositions just as there isn't any doubt one's upbringing contributes a great deal to our personalities. </div> <div>      The problem with this synthesis is it doesn't explain all the problems of personality. A child raised by murderers doesn't automatically become a murderer despite having both biological and environmental “excuses” for such actions. A child raised by righteous parents doesn't automatically become righteous himself. Why does one child becomes good while his sibling becomes bad despite both have the same genetic heritage and generally identical nurturing (the small variations in nurturing between siblings is insufficient to explain diametrically opposed personalities)? A parent can be righteous and his offspring, evil, and vice versa. Why? </div> <div>      The well-established answer is “free-will.” Here's the problem, “Why does one's free-will <I>cause </I>some to use it to become good and others to use it to become evil?” What exactly is it that causes one to exercise his free-will to do good or to do evil? Of course nature and nurture are included but what is it that overrides the consequences of nature and nurture, that enables one to become something that is <I>contrary</I> to his biological and environmental influences?</div> <div>      The rebellious teenage years and early adulthood has one's character in a very fluid state and is the defining moment as to what that person will be. This period has the person seeking and defining his character. Shall he emulate the example of his parents or use them as an example of what not to follow? The onset of real maturity during one's thirties and forties solidifies one's personality. Whatever he is at this period reveals what he truly is,<I> irrespective of his biological or environmental heritages, </I>since true maturity arises from being independent to the predispositions derived from outside factors. He can <I>willingly</I> overcome any predispositions derived from his biological and environmental heritages and be whatever he truly wants to be. Shall he be righteous or shall he be evil? Shall he blame his upbringing for his evil actions or rationalize wrong behavior? Shall he force himself to overcome carnal actions that have enslaved him and is destroying his soul? Shall he turn to God after a lifetime of evil?</div> <div>      What then, is the ultimate <I>cause </I>of his character? Since he is at a stage in which his will is outside the “nature” and “nurture” domain, neither the “nature” or “nurture” concepts can explain why he is what he is. “Why is he what he is?” It is only Mormonism that can answer this question. “He is what he is because of his <B>uncreated intelligence</B>, the core of his existence.”</div> <div> This central will of his, this “uncreated intelligence,” in turn, must be placed in subjection to the will of God in order for him to be exalted and transformed into a replica of Christ. This means if his uncreated intelligence causes him to be evil, he must force himself to overcome any evil predispositions that derive from his uncreated nature. It is difficult but not any more difficult than the predispositions given to us by our biology or environment. Jesus Christ has promised us strength in overcoming any problems if we rely upon him and have faith in him.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> 46.The passage refers to these beings as “spirits,” not “intelligences,” but the description of these “spirits” pertains to the self-existent “intelligences,” the foundation of our spirits, not our spirits themselves.</div> <div> 47.cf. “For this, and nothing but this, is His only work - the salvation of man.” Clement of Alexandria. <I>Prot. </I>9.</div> <div> 48.Atheists like Carl Sagan fall into the trap of using erroneous logic. (1) Just because humans have only been around for a minute fraction of the universe's existence doesn't invalidate the importance of mankind. “Time” simply has no meaning for God. There isn't any difference to him whether he places us on this earth 16 billion years after the Big Bang or a million years after the creation of the universe. All he wanted was to place his spirit children on a world to learn to be like him. It didn't matter <I>when</I> he would place them on a world as long as he would sometime within the universe. This is similar to my cleaning the bathroom when my wife asks me. If my wife asks me to clean the bathroom on a certain day, it doesn't matter if I clean it at 6 AM, 1 PM or 8 PM. The only thing that matters is I get it done within the day. (2) Such thinking assumes the massive size of the universe and how inconsequential earth is in relation to it means we, as a species, are inconsequential as well. God had to put his spirit children <I>somewhere</I>. Why claim that just because the place we're placed in is so small in comparison to the universe mean we're not special? Just because the crib of a baby may be small (that's placed in a palace) doesn't mean the baby is inconsequential. (3) Such thinking also assumes only humanity on this one earth are the children of God. We really have no way of knowing if God placed other spirit children of his on other worlds throughout the universe but Mos  1:35-38 seems to imply that he did. This doesn't mean all his children have to look like us. It is perfectly logical that there are other children of God whose physical appearances are different from ours but who are God's spirit children since the physical appearance doesn't have to resemble the spirit image (one only need to look at those with physical imperfections such as scars, amputations, birth defects, etc. to see this fact).</div> <div> 49.Within the confines of desiring righteousness, improvement and already doing good prior to mortality due to being on the side that won the War in Heaven.</div> <div> 50.This isn't in reference to the mental capability of man due to our brains.</div> <div> 51.TPJS. p. 354.</div> <div> 52.ER. p. 13.</div> <div> 53.Gen  18:14; 1 Sam  14:6; Job  42:1-2; Ps  115:3;  135:6; Eccl  3:14;  7:13;  11:5; Isa  14:27;  26:4;  43:11-13;  45:5,7; Jer  32:17,27; Dan  4:34-35; Matt  19:26; Mark  10:27; Luke  1:37;  18:27; John  1:3; Acts  26:8; Eph  3:20; Heb  1:3; 1 Jn  3:20; Rev  3:7;  19:6; 1 Ne  4:1;  7:12; 2 Ne 27:20; Mosi  3:5,17,18,21;  5:2,15; Hela  12:11; D&C  121:4.</div> <div> 54.Matt  11:27;  28:18; John  3:35;  13:3;  16:15;  17:7,10; Rom  13:1; 1 Cor  15:24-28; Heb  1:2; 1 Ne  9:6; Mosi  4:9; Alma  12:15;  26:35; Morm  5:23; Eth  3:4; D&C  19:3;  61:1;  84:28;  93:17;  100:1; Mos  6:61.</div> <div> 55.It is freely admitted that the biblical text itself doesn't contain any explicit statements that clearly teach the general  pre-existence, only some implicit passages or some that can only make sense if they are understood as such. Regardless of the fact that such a doctrine is clearly taught in the Latter-day Scriptures, it is definitely logical since any denial of a  pre-existence of humans in an adult state and the rational  pre-existence of non-human life results in God being responsible for undeserved and physical evil. </div> <div> 56.Children don't go to war and are incapable of the monumental decision of accepting a plan with eternal consequences.</div> <div> 57.It seems self-evident that no one would chose to be born as an evil being unless the mere possession of a material nature confers benefits to the being unobtainable by remaining an incorporeal spirit (D&C  93:33-34).</div> <div>      Why did the spirit who became Hitler decide to become Hitler <I>if he knew</I> Hitler was going to be enormously evil? This shows this spirit who agreed to become Hitler <I>didn't know</I> the <I>magnitude</I> of evil he would be responsible for. All he knew was the circumstances of his mortal life and that he would experience and do evil. No rational spirit would willingly chose to become a being who did tremendous evil which would result in being cast into Outer Darkness with Satan and the demons instead of an eternity in the other kingdoms. The spirit who became Hitler believed in himself in the pre-existence. He believed he would become a righteous being in mortality, but this was in a state in which he wasn't true to his uncreated nature due to existing in an environment of <I>knowing</I> God and his will in the pre-existence. His true uncreated nature only came out when his memory of the pre-existence was removed and he had to live under <I>faith</I>, not knowing the Truth of God and his will.</div> <div>      During the Final Judgement, he will realize that his uncreated nature is such that he will always turn out evil regardless of the circumstances of his life unless making the effort of subjecting himself to the will of Christ. He will then view the improvement of having a material nature to be worth the failure of achieving exaltation, and realize that because of his uncreated nature, this is the best he could receive under <I>any</I> circumstances. He would realize that as soon as his memory is removed, he will act evil regardless of the circumstances of his mortal life. He can't blame anyone else for his failure because the flaw always existed within his person and wasn't created by any outside force or being. If he chose to experience tremendous undeserved evil and pain in mortality he would go to the Telestial Kingdom, if not he would be cast into Outer Darkness together with Satan and the demons. He had the same choice we all are given: Take a chance of becoming exalted and if he fails, he will receive an eternity of a material body, or remain an incorporeal spirit for all eternity. </div> <div> It is better to receive a glorified immortal body, with its associated advantages and an eternity in the Telestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness than an eternity as an incorporeal being.</div> <bR> <div> 58.No rational being chooses to experience unnecessary evil and pain unless such suffering gave certain advantages that wouldn't be possible any other way.  Despite we don't really know for sure what was viewed as a greater good that made evil and pain worth the experience, certain assumptions can be made that are consistent with revealed revelations.</div> <div>      The LDS spiritual worldview denotes varying kinds of people and differing circumstances and rewards:</div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="08667150.jpg" border=0 width="615" height="277" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div>      The different kinds of humans demonstrate the logical coherency of the Mormon view of God's Plan of Salvation. This worldview is the only one that satisfactorily resolves a very serious problem:</div> <bR> <div> <B>  Why do some experience tremendous undeserved evil and pain in mortality and others don't? </B></div> <bR> <div>      The simplest answer is those who do experience such things <I>needed</I> them in order to ascend to the next higher level than they would be if they didn't experience it.</div> <div>      All of us had an encounter with God in the pre-existence similar, but more solemn, to the following:</div> <bR> <div>      <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >A Spirit being in the pre-existence approaches God ...</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Spirit being: “I'd like a physical body, please.”</div> <div>      God: “Certainly. Would you like tremendous undeserved evil and pain with that?”</div> <bR> <div>      This can be described as:</div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="08557850.gif" border=0 width="599" height="133" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div>      Who experiences tremendous evil and pain? All Life forms. Here's a systematic breakdown of all Life and the two kinds of beings in each category:</div> <bR> <div>      (1) <B>Children and the mentally handicapped.</B> All children and the mentally handicapped (the “Innocents”) who die are guaranteed exaltation (become “God/Gods/gods” ) in the Celestial Kingdom (the highest heaven). There are two kinds of “Innocents” who die: those who experience evil and pain, and those who don't. This means there are two kinds of spirit offspring of God who die as “Innocents”: those who<I> need </I>to experience evil and pain in order to be exalted and those who don't. This shows there are many spirit beings who courageously chose to live such lives of evil and pain in exchange for guaranteed exaltation, which is only given to the most valiant spirit offspring of God (most of these are the other “Innocents” who die).</div> <div>      (2) <B>Good people who would accept and live the gospel if given a chance.</B> These humans qualify for exaltation. There are two kinds: those who experience tremendous evil and pain and those who don't. This means there are spirit offspring of God whose uncreated natures are such that they can't be exalted without experiencing tremendous evil and pain and there are those who don't need to experience such evil and pain in order to be exalted. Consequently, those who do experience tremendous evil and pain <I>need</I> it in order to be exalted. They bravely chose such lives to achieve a greater good.</div> <div>      (3) <B>Good people who wouldn't accept and live the Gospel if given a chance.</B> These beings are glorified into the Terrestial Kingdom (the second- level heaven). These are two kinds: those who experience tremendous evil and pain and those who don't. There are those who <I>need</I> to experience such evil and pain in order to enter the Terrestial Kingdom whereas others don't need to. If the beings who experienced such tremendous evil and pain didn't chose such an existence, the best they could hope for would've been the Telestial Kingdom (the third-level or lowest heaven) because of their uncreated nature.</div> <div>      (4)<B> Bad people who would accept and live the gospel if given a chance.</B> There are so many factors associated with determining where such beings will go. It is much better to have a repentant sinner who reforms his life and does his best in obeying God's will than one who is righteous but doesn't want to obey God in all things by joining his church and living the gospel. There are two kinds: those who experience tremendous evil and pain and those who don't. Those who experience such evil and pain <I>need</I> to do so in order to enter the next higher state than what they would normally get if they didn't experience such evil and pain. Those who didn't experience such evil and pain didn't need to experience them because they were already at the level suitable for their righteousness. These go to either the Celestial, Terrestial or the Telestial Kingdoms. </div> <div>      (5) <B>Bad people who wouldn't accept and live the gospel if given a chance.</B> There are two kinds: those who experience tremendous evil and pain and those who don't. Those who experience such evil and pain <I>need</I> to do so in order to enter the Telestial Kingdom while those who don't are already at the level suitable for entrance into the Telestial Kingdom. Those who experience such evil and pain are those spirit offspring of God whose uncreated intelligences are such that they will become evil regardless of the circumstances of their mortal lives. Instead of being cast into outer darkness, they are given the opportunity to redeem themselves by experiencing tremendous evil and pain which will enable them to go to the Telestial Kingdom, having an eternity of a glorified material nature, with its associated pleasures and sensations. Unfortunately, there are some who are so evil and depraved that they will be cast into outer darkness, without hope of receiving any degree of glory.</div> <div>      (6) <B>Non-human life.</B> All lower life forms are guaranteed participation in the Resurrection (all receive an eternal immortal corporeal nature) which confers pleasures they wouldn't be able to experience any other way. There are two kinds of non-human life: those who experience evil and pain in mortality and those who don't. We simply don't know why some spirit beings (who aren't offspring of God) chose to live lives experiencing evil and pain. There definitely has to be a perceived greater benefit but the Lord hasn't told us what it is. It may mean living at a higher level of existence after the Final Judgment.</div> <bR> <div>      These assumptions don't entail moral fatalism since these are about the <I>occurrence of evil</I>; not the <I>duration of evil</I>. The removal of our memories of the pre-existence demands we do our best in eliminating all the evil and pain we possibly can. The contrast of these different levels shows the occurrence of tremendous undeserved evil and pain that may or may not result in the death of the victims does have a logical explanation in light of Mormon Cosmology.</div> <bR> <div> 59.Zoroastrianism's “Duality” was incorrectly identified in the past as a duality of equals. Its Ahura Mazda-Ahriman or Spenta Mainyu-Angra Mainyu (that's based upon Zarathustra's <I>Yasna </I>30:1-7 & 45:2) is actually much closer to Traditional Theism's God-Satan relationship. </div> <div> 60.DCNR. p. 115.</div> <div> 61.The mortal existence of God in an ancestral universe is examined in MORMONISM: Section 1 Chapters 10, 14 & 15. </div> <div> 62. The existence of free-will ensures the possibility that evil will always exist in an all-good environment (e.g., Satan and the fallen 1/3). It doesn't have to be <I>actual</I>, merely <I>potential</I>.</div> <div> 63.This is due to the fact other forces seem to be able to manipulate intelligences to some extent (non-eternal) such as the existence of fervent focused will and the existence of pious collective desire (i.e., “miracles” occur to those with strong religious faith - Mosi  8:18; Alma  37:40; Eth  12:16; Moro  7:37). These explain why certain religious leaders produce “miracles” regardless of their persuasion, why miracles occur in conflicting religions to those who have faith and why certain supernatural events occur at religious sites since not all “miracles” are fabrications. </div> <bR> <div>  Mosi <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>8:18 Thus God has provided a means that man,<I> through faith, might work mighty miracles</I>; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> This is why miracles, signs and wonders aren't <I>automatic</I> proof the performers and religions who have them are authentic (e.g., Rev  13:13-15;  16:14;  19:20; D&C  24:13; Ex  7:11-12,22;  8:7; Matt  24:24; Mark  13:22; Acts  8:9-10; 2 Th  2:8-11; cf. John  4:48; D&C  63:7-12).</div> <bR> <div> 64.The issue on exaltation is it's an ontological transformation that can only occur one way. This means <I>the offspring need to literally follow the exact footsteps of the parent.</I> The word the Bible use is “<I>metamorphoo</I>” or “metamorphosis.” The human species doesn't have this intermediate stage that marks the transformation from a caterpillar into a butterfly. Think of us as “caterpillars” and God is a “butterfly.” There is only <I>one way</I> for caterpillars to become butterflies. God is telling us the correct way to follow and all those who refuse to obey his directives will never become butterflies themselves. No matter how much God wants to help them; if they refuse to listen and obey, they can never be metamorphosized.</div> <div> 65.Also 4 Ez 4:33-37; 7:74; OTP. 1:531,539.</div> <div> 66.GE. p. 56 “If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in a man's freely choosing the good on one, or on several, occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.”</div> <div> 67.ER. p. 19.</div> <div> 68.GE. p. 67. Also, “Can it seriously be maintained that if an individual were born crippled and deformed and never in his life experienced pleasure, that he could not experience pain, not even if he were severely injured? It is clear that pain is possible in the absence of pleasure.”</div> <div> 69.Ibid. p. 68.</div> <div> 70.Ibid. p. 69 “Natural calamities do not necessarily turn people to God, but rather present the problem of evil in acute form; and the problem of evil is said to account for more defections from religion than any other cause. Thus if God's object in bringing about natural calamities is to inspire reverence and awe, He is a bungler. There are many more reliable methods of achieving this end. Equally important, the use of physical evil to achieve this object is hardly the course one would expect a benevolent God to adopt when other, more effective, less evil methods are available to Him, for example, miracles, special revelation, etc.”</div> <div> 71.Ibid. p. 70.</div> <div> 72.Ibid. p. 71.</div> <div> 73.Ibid. p. 74.</div> <div> 74.Ibid. p. 75. Also “The theist's argument is seen to imply that war plus courage plus the many other moral virtues war brings into play are better than peace and its virtues; that famine and its moral virtues are better than plenty; that disease and its moral virtues are better than health. Some Christians in the past, in consistency with this mode of reasoning, opposed the use of anesthetics to leave scope for the virtues of endurance and courage, and they opposed state aid to the sick and needy to leave scope for the virtues of charity and sympathy. Some have even contended that war is a good in disguise, again in consistency with this argument.”</div> <div> 75.DCNR. pp. 116.</div> <div> 76.ER. p. 17.</div> <div> 77.Ibid. p. 18.</div> <div> 78.Ibid. p. 18.</div> <div> 79.Ibid. p. 18. `In response, the traditional free-will theodicist can point out that it would be deceptive of God to give us the illusion of being free when we really were not, and that this deceptiveness would count against God's perfect goodness. But this response leaves a difficult question: Which of these two pictures of God is less morally reprehensible-a God who created an earthly paradise but deceived its self-conscious inhabitants about their true status, or a God who freely and unilaterally made all forms of evil in our world possible solely for the value that would thereby accrue to God? Once the question is thus posed, many, I suspect, would find neither being worthy of worship and thereby worthy of the name “God.”' </div> <div> 80.Ibid. p. 19.</div> <div> 81.GE. p. 78.</div> <div> 82.Ibid. p. 80.</div> <div> 83.Ibid. p. 80.</div> <div> 84.Ibid. p. 81.</div> <div> 85.Ibid. p. 82 “In attributing such behavior to God, and in attempting to account for moral evil along these lines, theists are, I suggest, attributing to God immoral behavior of a serious kind-of a kind we should all unhesitatingly condemn in a fellow human being.</div> <div> We do not commend people for putting temptation in the way of others. On the contrary, anyone who today advocated, or even allowed where he could prevent it, the occurrence of evil and the sacrifice of the many-even as a result of their own freely chosen actions-for the sake of the higher virtue of the few, would be condemned as an immoralist. To put severe temptation in the way of the many, knowing that many and perhaps even most will succumb to the temptation, for the sake of the higher virtue of the few, would be blatant immorality; and it would be immoral whether or not those who yielded to the temptation possessed free-will.”</div> <bR> <div> 86.ABD. 6:447.</div> <div> 87.ER. p. 21 “... whatever initial plausibility this theodicy has, its unsatisfactoriness becomes more and more evident as it is probed. In any case, many thoughtful persons have decided that, while it is an improvement over the all-determining version of the traditional theodicy, it does not provide a satisfactory solution.”</div> <div> 88.DCNR. p. 147 Endnote #72.</div> <div> 89.Ibid. pp. 112,114.</div> <div> 90.ER. p. 16.</div> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>