True Philosophical Defenses of Mormonism

[_SteelHead]

Saying that good and evil are constructs of man as evidenced by Job runs contrary to the evidence of Genesis

1:4:
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Moses 2:4
And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

God speaking in the first.

And the ability to distinguish between good and evil is one of the fist qualities of divinity evidenced in the scriptures.

3:22:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

It would seem good and evil predates the creation of man, and god has some standards as to what is good. The ability to distinguish between good and evil is a quality of god, as is the ability to do works that are defined by god as good.

[_subgenius]

Saying that good and evil are constructs of man as evidenced by Job runs contrary to the evidence of Genesis

1:4:
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Moses 2:4
And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

God speaking in the first.

And the ability to distinguish between good and evil is one of the fist qualities of divinity evidenced in the scriptures.

3:22:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

It would seem good and evil predates the creation of man, and god has some standards as to what is good. The ability to distinguish between good and evil is a quality of god, as is the ability to do works that are defined by god as good.

not contrary at all...the best is in Genesis 3:22. (which i especially enjoy for the use of the word "us").
Clearly as man has gained this "knowledge" he has gained it in a manner contrary to that of God, for man has this knowledge in a manner which is fatal and unlawful. Man regards good and evil within himself as qualities of his own condemnation, for they were acquired through disobedience - otherwise the knowledge would have acquired by a legitimate manner...this is evidenced by the fact that before he was guilt free, but after he immediately knew of his own guilt and thus knew of his own condemnation.
This is the cause of "suffering" of why we weep for ourselves when we exclaim that this/that is "Evil"...it is because we lost that communion with God, that inability to perceive "know" good/evil as God knows them - as is obvious in the book of Job. Which is why it is an incorrect chracterisitc to impose upon God when a man questions "why did God allow this Evil?" - no man ever exclaims with the same anger when God allows something good, do they?
That is the distinction that must be recognized.

[_SteelHead]

In genesis god says man is become as us knowing good and evil. Where does it say that man's knowledge of good and evil is somehow different than god's? It is a conclusion that you are promoting but which seems without biblical support.

If god is good and evil is acting against his will then the only way we know what is good is through his revelation. Hence man's knowledge of good and evil is directly dependant on god. The difference is in degree, not of kind.

[Guest]

False. You ignored the fact that SEP is assuming an exclusively necessary God, with no other necessary beings.

Go back and read the first few paragraphs of the SEP article. It clearly demonstrates that the necessity/contingency of humans is irrelevant to the problem of evil. That was the main point of my response to you.

I trust that SEP is in a better position than a lone, crusading Mopologist from the MI to tell us about the "long tradition" of the problem of evil. Like I said, you can re-define the problem however you like. I, further, being several steps ahead of you, pointed out where this would become problematic and backfire for your case, such as in answering the existential problem of evil.

I invite you to bring Midgley and Hamblin to this forum to help you out, so I can own them too.

PS. Free will is not impossible for Calvinists, go back and read Jonathan Edwards. Calvinists hold a position similar to compatibilism. The non-Calvinist arguments for libertarian freedom came long before Mormonism, and work independent of whether humans are contingent or necessary. But that's an aside, since whether humans are contingent or necessary has nothing to do with whether or not God allows bad things to happen. See steps 1-7 in the SEP article; the philosophy department at Stanford understands the "long tradition" of the problem of evil better than you do.

I have stated the classic problem of theodicy for you several times, and you are clearly not familiar with it. You seem not to be aware of the unstated premises and undistributed middle terms in your reasoning which falsify your conclusions. You are not alone in this, since most adherents of the mainstream Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition are in denial. I suggest that you acquire a copy of A. J. Ayer, Language,Truth and Logic, in order to find your way through the confusion.
You should have recognized immediately that my discussion is part of standard philosophy and theology. It is apparent that you are afraid to engage in a real discussion of theodicy.
And, by the way, I do not come from the Maxwell Institute. My understanding of these issues comes from my study of theology & philosophy back in the 1960s, beginning with a couple of books by Sterling McMurrin (who understood the problem of theodicy).
That you are simply out of touch with logic and reality, you can find by looking at the following:
http://counteringcalvinism.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/norman-geisler-on-extreme-calvinism-and-blaming-god-for-evil/
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2877916005.html
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=6810

[_Robert F Smith]

In genesis god says man is become as us knowing good and evil. Where does it say that man's knowledge of good and evil is somehow different than god's? It is a conclusion that you are promoting but which seems without biblical support.

If god is good and evil is acting against his will then the only way we know what is good is through his revelation. Hence man's knowledge of good and evil is directly dependant on god. The difference is in degree, not of kind.

Nonsense.
Before all else, no creature of an omnibeneficient God can do evil unless he is somehow not entirely a creature of God, i.e., a necessary being who has existence apart from God.
Thus, in Genesis, when the man and woman become as gods, knowing good & evil, and are able to act freely to perform good and evil acts, that is a sign that they are necessary beings. No contingent being could so act.

[Guest]

your characterization of God is wrong.
Evil and Good are not characters of God, they are constructs of man. This is the overwhelming, blatant, and obvious lesson from the book of Job.
Therefore, to assume that God has created, coordinated, or facilitated Evil/Good is wrong.

So, to consider God as being less than Godly because He seemingly does not stop what you may consider as being Evil is rather like a child considering their parent as less than parental because they "ruined my life!". Many parents have this awareness and experience with their own children, wherein the child considers a situation as being "the end of the world" - a consideration that is genuine and sincere - but the parent seems to be indifferent or uncooperative with the desire of their child.
To God there would be sin and not sin...and those conditions are always and only a consequence of a person's conscious decision.

The question is not whether God does not stop evil acts, but whether a contingent being could perform an evil act. A contingent being is wholly a creature of God, and any evil performed by a contingent being would be the fault of God, which is a contradiction in terms.
Since human children and their parents are all necessary beings in Mormon theology, their flawed acts are their own free choices and cannot be blamed on God.

[_Robert F Smith]

Another true philosophical defense of Mormonism is adherence to the anthropomorphic interpretation of God, something which is not found in the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.
In so saying, note that the biblical God is anthropomorphic:
R. Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205–228 (see esp. 222-223 on anthropomorphism in the Bible), online at http://berkeley.academia.edu/RonHendel/Papers/848639/Aniconism_and_Anthropomorphism_in_Ancient_Israel.
Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), reviewed in RBL, Feb 2012, online at http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8190 .

Yohanan Muffs insists that “[T]he biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture” (Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 [Dec 2002], 23).

[_subgenius]

The question is not whether God does not stop evil acts, but whether a contingent being could perform an evil act. A contingent being is wholly a creature of God, and any evil performed by a contingent being would be the fault of God, which is a contradiction in terms.
Since human children and their parents are all necessary being in Mormon theology, their flawed acts are their own free choices and cannot be blamed on God.

i agree with your notion about "choice"...but i believe many "critics" like to point to the occurrence of a Tsunami which may wipe out a day care center...obviously not a product of "choice" (unless you are some sort of climate change nut or other nut).
So, the question always is "how could God allow such a tragedy?"
Therein lies the distinction i was trying to make...the value of that event is purely from a human, or temporal, perspective. To use such an event to assert that God must surely be flawed because obviously He has subverted our temporal desires is absurd and illuminates that the person making the assertion has an incorrect view.

[_SteelHead]

In genesis god says man is become as us knowing good and evil. Where does it say that man's knowledge of good and evil is somehow different than god's? It is a conclusion that you are promoting but which seems without biblical support.

If god is good and evil is acting against his will then the only way we know what is good is through his revelation. Hence man's knowledge of good and evil is directly dependant on god. The difference is in degree, not of kind.

Nonsense.
Before all else, no creature of an omnibeneficient God can do evil unless he is somehow not entirely a creature of God, i.e., a necessary being who has existence apart from God.
Thus, in Genesis, when the man and woman become as gods, knowing good & evil, and are able to act freely to perform good and evil acts, that is a sign that they are necessary beings. No contingent being could so act.

Psalms 82:6

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are a children of the most High

If my children are contingent on me, how are god's children not contingent on him?

[_Robert F Smith]

The question is not whether God does not stop evil acts, but whether a contingent being could perform an evil act. A contingent being is wholly a creature of God, and any evil performed by a contingent being would be the fault of God, which is a contradiction in terms.
Since human children and their parents are all necessary being in Mormon theology, their flawed acts are their own free choices and cannot be blamed on God.

i agree with your notion about "choice"...but i believe many "critics" like to point to the occurrence of a Tsunami which may wipe out a day care center...obviously not a product of "choice" (unless you are some sort of climate change nut or other nut).
So, the question always is "how could God allow such a tragedy?"
Therein lies the distinction i was trying to make...the value of that event is purely from a human, or temporal, perspective. To use such an event to assert that God must surely be flawed because obviously He has subverted our temporal desires is absurd and illuminates that the person making the assertion has an incorrect view.

I suppose the legal phrase "act of God," reflects this problem by blaming God for geologic or other natural events which can destroy large numbers of people. Of course, if a traditional omnibeneficient God, who had created everything ex nihilo, allowed such a thing, we blame Him. Such a God cannot, however, exist, simply based on the self-contradictory premises.