A paper for Philosophy 215. Discusses approaches towards the problem of evil from an LDS perspective.

For centuries, theologians have struggled with the problem of evil: a problem which has, simply stated, asked how it is possible that evil could occur while we have an all-good, all-powerful god watching over us. While many philosophers have struggled with this idea in one form or another, David Hume placed the problem fairly succinctly into a logical contradiction.

Hume begins with a god who is almighty and omnibenevolent. The then asserts the fact that evil and misery occur in the world. The first assumption is that their occurrence is not be chance, and therefore through some cause. If the presence of evil is in accordance to god’s will, god could not be all good. If the presence of evil is against the will of god, then he could not be all powerful.

Traditional Solutions

A Calvinist approach could take various forms, possibly taking the case that god is allowing evil because it brings about the greater good. In order to create a world that includes the highest possible good some evil must come into it. In a simple example, trees must be cut down in order to create a field that can be plowed. In such a case, it is necessary that evils occur so that god can cause the greatest degree of god to occur in the world. Even under the classical view of god, the term ‘omnipotence’ still excludes that which is logically impossible. It could be argued that some of these evils provide a logical necessity for good.

An Armenian solution might attempt to use an argument that says that, since god gave man libertarian agency, all evil that comes in the world is man’s fault. Man has power to control his environment, to a degree, and any evil which occurs his to be blamed on his failure. Like the Calvinist approach, it could be said that god chooses to give up power to man because it will produce the greatest possible world in the end. Furthermore, it produces a context where god has the ability to show his goodness. Through man’s pain, god can show sympathy and compassion. Through man’s faults, god can show justice and mercy. Thus, libertarian freedom creates a world where god can reach the highest degree of goodness, but necessitates the existence of evil in the process.

Mormon Solution 1

An LDS perspective provides additional insight to the problem of evil in that allows for conditions that traditional theism generally doesn’t allow. Approaching the problem of evil from the LDS perspective, I want to provide an argument in the light of two different definitions of evil. The first is the traditional definition of evil, which includes any unpleasant events or anything that brings unhappiness into our lives.

The LDS perspective differs from other perspectives on the problem of evil because it differs in its understanding of god in an important way. Whereas the god of classical theism created everything and everyone out of nothing, he is the sole originator of all that exists in the universe – both good and bad. The Mormon god did not create everything but organized everything with pre-existing materials. Humans are independent beings that have existed co-eternally with god.

The co-eternality of man with god solves a number of problems. First of all, in response to a classically determined perception of man, it answers the question of why God would have created a being as faulty as a human. In response to a version of classical theism that allows for the libertarian freedom of man, it answers the question of why god would create something that would limit is own freedom and power. On the other hand, this perspective does place certain limits on the omnipotence of god. It allows for a god who is not the single cause of all things and does not have absolute power in the universe. However, this slightly limited god allows for a way out of the logical problem of evil.

Because he did not wholly create us, the evils that we produce are not his doing. This still leaves the presence of evil in nature and the god’s allowance of wicked people man to keep living and doing evil. This leads to another important aspect of the Mormon perspective of God – his will.

Though god certainly is omnibenevolent, his desire for good extends further then we may suppose. The Pearl of Great Price states that god’s work and glory are founded in bringing about “the immortality and eternal life of man”(1), which is accomplished in man’s becoming like god is in character. Because god cannot force man to become like him, all he can do is present the conditions man can have the opportunity to learn and grow and choose to become like him. These conditions necessarily involve some form of adversity in life’s course as part of a probationary period.

This understanding may account for the presence of difficult events, but what of extremes in tragedy? If the purpose of allowing for evil is the growth that comes from confronting adversity, what growth does a young child experience when he is unexpectedly killed? Here the Mormon plan of salvation plays a key role in explaining the problem of evil.

According to Joseph Smith, everyone will have an opportunity to arrive at his or her full potential at some point. Through an extended existence in a pre-mortal world and a continued existence in a post-mortal world, human beings will have the opportunity to make choices in response to their environment that will allow them to become like god in character. While traditional theism must provide an explanation for all events in this life, Mormon theology allows for an understanding of the existence of evil through its eternal perspective.

Returning to the existence of evil in this life, the late Mormon scholar Eugene England summed up the solution to the problem of evil when he explained that “God is doing all that can be done, given the nature of things, to help us…he in no sense created evil to do that, but in choosing to help us progress God had to bring us into a condition where there were new things to learn and choices to be made.”(2) England further explains that that condition is one where evils occur. Thus, god truly is absolutely good – indeed, much better then we realize.

Because the Mormon solution allows for a limited concept of god, the strongest objection the Mormon solution must address god’s omnibenevolence. Such an objection might claim that the Mormon solution still doesn’t fully explain extremes in pain and anguish that occur in this world. Even if adversity aids our growth and even if we have the ability to progress outside of this world, it still seems as if pain and suffering exists which brings about no good at all. Because all humans are communally connected, it’s difficult to imagine circumstances of pain towards one person not having any effect on other people, but it’s still theoretically possible that absolutely fruitless evils occur in the world. Perhaps an entire Eskimo community slowly freezes to death in an especially cold artic winter. No one’s there to benefit from it, it’s all just unnecessary suffering.

It’s easy enough to say that there is some good that comes of it somewhere and we simply don’t understand the larger picture as god does. But it seems as if, if god really were omnibenevolent, then he would stop the unnecessary evils or at least reveal his purpose in allowing it to happen.

The best I can do in response to this objection is simply to suggest that god doesn’t see our physical suffering as all that bad. Though it sounds like a terrible thing to say, perhaps our perception that someone who is completely good will impede extremes in evil is simply misguided. Perhaps, in the greater eternal perspective of things, the sufferings that we endure – no matter how great we think they are – are really just trifles compared to the joy that we may experience in the world after.

Mormon Solution 2

Though the first definition of evil is all encompassing, I think it is important to address the issue of the problem of evil from the perspective of a different understanding of evil altogether. Specifically, one that says that evil consists only of a condition of the human heart. Though the immediate implications of this perspective have already been touched on, I think it deserves further consideration.

First: a word in defense of this understanding of evil. Though horrific events, from natural disasters to human accidents, do occur in the world, none of it is really contrary to good. It’s all unfortunate of course, but it’s not evil in the sense that it deters inner human peace. Viktor Frankl observed many different men in the Nazi concentration camps of World War II and noted that some men managed to find happiness in circumstances that clearly were among the most awful living conditions known to man. What brought happiness, he observed, came from within. Environment, he concluded, does not cause misery – our misery is caused by our response to our environment.

This perception of misery radically changes our perception of the “evils” of external circumstances. Indeed, if it impossible for our environment to cause misery, then it is equally impossible for environmental circumstances to be labeled as “evil”. Thus, calling earthquakes and tornadoes evil (even if they do cause physical suffering) is actually a misnomer. If the only thing that can truly bring about our unhappiness is our own wrong-heartedness, then the condition of our heart is the only thing that can truly be considered evil.

Of course, if the state of our heart – or our will – is the only thing that can be evil, then there is nothing that god can do to prevent it. For, by definition of the will, if god were to “force” our hearts to will the good, then it wouldn’t really be willing the good at all. According to this understanding, it is logically impossible for god to prevent evil. And if we include, within the definition of omnipotence, the exception for that which is logically impossible, then we are able to maintain god’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence while also allowing for the existence of evil.

I think that this explanation is even more valuable than the previously given solution to the problem of evil from the Mormon perspective. Though it may not fully explain the presence of unfortunate events the way the previous explanation did, it does provide for a clear cut elimination of the problem of the existence of evil. More importantly, it allows us to be at peace because we know that our happiness is within our control.

March 24, 2004

Notes

1. Moses 1:39
2. England, Eugene. “How Can God Be Both Good and Powerful?” Dialogues with Myself. Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1984. p. 100.