Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

[_subgenius]

" given the fact that we are not perfect, that our obstacles and challenges are according to our own needs?"
Subgenius,
I can see that all of us are not perfect and we all have challenges so I can connect to your comment a little. However you seem to have fallen into saying that the person born blind in the John passage was born that way as a direct results of his failings in the preexistence.

Well, perhaps direct, or indirect (likely the latter)...but the resulting reasoning could be consistent with a doctrinal view of pre-existence, correct?

Because such failings are volitional they would be sins. You have said he was born blind due to his sin in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus.

This is not accurate. Christ merely severs the notion that a special, or even specific, sin is the direct cause for the blindness - it does not pronounce the man as being sinless. In other words Christ is saying that the man's (or parent's) behavior here is not the cause of the affliction, but that is not to say they are not sinners. So, in effect Christ is speaking to the spiritual blindness of men in general...but perhaps the clarification is necessary as to whether Christ is speaking about the man here and now, or the man before, now, and forever?
Granted Christ's answer is somewhat specific to the design of the question he was asked, but Mormon doctrine - dealing with pre-existence necessarily addresses this issue....and President Lee, may or may have not clarified the point.

////adding
I was going to reply to your comment about a Divine collusion but decided I really did not know what you were thinking of with that comment.

well, the notion of pre-existence being specific to Mormon Doctrine brings this into question as a possible explanation.
First, let us recognize that many evangelicals consider the idea of a premortal life to be invalid. So, for them to argue John 9:3 in that context is certainly contrary to their own doctrine, and they would need to extend John 9:3 into a premortal existence.
Second, this collusion would be a necessary line of reasoning to investigate. If one considers the notion expressed in John 9:2-3 we read that Christ speaks of an opportunity being created by those seemingly less-fortunate in our own eyes. Obviously this opportunity is of a divine consequence and not random happenstance. So, if all parties involved were righteous spirits in the pre-mortal life and were on equal spiritual footing, then surely it was intentional for the circumstance to be presented here. That it was intended for a blind man to be upon the earth for the purpose of Christ's miracle(s)...correct?

I think we all share in various ways in the frailities of the flesh and though I do not believe sin is the only element of that frailty but I do think it is an important partand I figure none of us are free of that disablity.

Well, on the one hand I believe these temporal frailties are symptomatic of our shared spiritual frailties, as Christ alludes to in the above cited passages.
But all this boils down to a conception of what it means to have been in the pre-mortal life, does it not?

So, back to president Lee.

I suppose one could consider the following with regards to a pre-mortal spirit occupying "flawless" body and another pre-mortal spirit occupying a "flawed" body.
If we consider both spirits to be equally "righteous" and equally "lacking" then how would we account for their distinct differences in temporal and spiritual challenges? Perhaps one could argue that one set of challenges is greater and more difficult than the other; that this set of challenges requires "more"...but one may argue that they are equally trying as well. So, why the difference then? Why challenge the blind man with blindness and challenge the sighted man with having compassion for the blind?
President Lee seems to forgo any notion of a spiritual "no child left behind" program and moves towards a reasoning that aligns more with a "head start" program.
Allow me to oversimplify - consider two persons, of equal strength, who are being asked to lift 300 pounds at an event in the near future, and by doing so will result in some sort of reward. Person "A" decides to immediately begin a training regimen, starting with 100 pounds, then working to 125, and so on. Person "B" decides to do nothing and remains at a comfortable lifting ability of 100 pounds (for whatever reason). After some time, Person "A" can lift 250 pounds and Person "B" can still only lift 100 pounds. The event is then revealed as being only a short time away from occurring....Person "B" then begins to train in order to lift the 300 pounds.
Each Person lifts the 300 pounds at the event...but, between the moment when the event time was revealed and the actual occurrence of the event, which person was in a "better" position to achieve the 300 pound goal and which person would have to take on a more challenging training schedule?
I believe this how President Lee was considering the situation....in a manner of speaking. However, does this constitute CoJCLDS Doctrine on the matter? I do not believe it meets that threshold but it is an interesting, albeit an abrasive, point of discussion that involves many points of Doctrine from the Book of Mormon and the New Testament which are not so easily resolved, alone or in conjunction....and especially not by our modern sensibilities of what is considered temporally "offensive".
what say you?

[_subgenius]

When growing up in the Church I was taught that handicapped people were special spirits, who were more righteous in the pre-existence and were sent here as a means to test the valiance of others in this life. I don't know which is worse, Harold B Lee's explanation or what I was taught.

Well, the discussion should be focused more on what is actual Doctrine and what is supported by Scriptures.
But
I think the third option, that being handicap is just a random coincidence of stardust, is far worse than either of the other 2 options.

(but you propose an interesting view given the somewhat stereotypical "arrogance" among those who are viewed as being more physically pure....eugenics anyone?)

[_huckelberry]

When growing up in the Church I was taught that handicapped people were special spirits, who were more righteous in the pre-existence and were sent here as a means to test the valiance of others in this life. I don't know which is worse, Harold B Lee's explanation or what I was taught.

Did that apply to people born with racial or national location limitations as well? Blacks were all more righteous in the preexistence? How about a blond blue eyed individual born poor in Mexico who did not learn English so he could pass when he came to work in the US?

[_huckelberry]

Because such failings are volitional they would be sins. You have said he was born blind due to his sin in direct contradiction to the words of Jesus.

This is not accurate. Christ merely severs the notion that a special, or even specific, sin is the direct cause for the blindness - it does not pronounce the man as being sinless.
........
If one considers the notion expressed in John 9:2-3 we read that Christ speaks of an opportunity being created by those seemingly less-fortunate in our own eyes. Obviously this opportunity is of a divine consequence and not random happenstance. So, if all parties involved were righteous spirits in the pre-mortal life and were on equal spiritual footing, then surely it was intentional for the circumstance to be presented here. That it was intended for a blind man to be upon the earth for the purpose of Christ's miracle(s)...correct?
........

President Lee seems to forgo any notion of a spiritual "no child left behind" program and moves towards a reasoning that aligns more with a "head start" program.
especially not by our modern sensibilities of what is considered temporally "offensive".
what say you?

Subgenius I hope this condensing of your comments did not alter your intention.

In the John passage the question was who sinned not what particular sin. I can agree that all have sinned so Jesus comment would not mean they were sinless just that the problem of blindness did nor result from sin.It is possible we are stuck with collusion of the type you refer to. I am inclined however to read the passage as meaning all disablities exist in order to reveal Gods healing and that revealing happens through the effort of us all not just through Jesus in person. I understand salvation to be a team effort.

The passage does not in itself specify team effort. I realize to consider that we have to look to a broader context. In my understanding team effort does not change the expectation of individuals to take responsibility to do their best however in a team someone else's shortcoming is to balanced by teammates. Perhaps one teammate is limited in one way but can accomplish other things which contribute to the success of the body of Christ.

If I add a preexistence to the picture I do not think that changes the functioning of the team.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius I hope this condensing of your comments did not alter your intention.

In the John passage the question was who sinned not what particular sin. I can agree that all have sinned so Jesus comment would not mean they were sinless just that the problem of blindness did nor result from sin.It is possible we are stuck with collusion of the type you refer to. I am inclined however to read the passage as meaning all disablities exist in order to reveal Gods healing and that revealing happens through the effort of us all not just through Jesus in person.

Not sure about this. I understand the passages to be a question of whether a particular sin could have caused the blindness, not just the general condition of sinfulness shared across all persons. This is obviously the context and framing of the question because the "imperfect" nature of people is a given to all involved. So, it seems to be a question of specificity...to which JC responds that no particular sin caused the blindness.

I understand salvation to be a team effort.

Interesting, but not the only effort available. Arguably one could achieve the salvation offered through JC if living all alone without any human contact. Yet the notion of why particular people are in their particular part of this "healing opportunity" is unresolved by the passages. Surely we cannot assume it to be a random condition among people that God turned into a learning experience post hoc.
The notion of healing and blindness is all to pertinent to God's intention and spiritual education to be an afterthought.
So, I propose that God has provided challenges to individuals and to groups (society) intentionally. Now, if we consider the pre-mortal existence, we must assume that pre-mortal spirits were either assigned or chose to occupy a particular person here on earth in order to fulfill this intention....correct?
Either way, it becomes interesting to speculate, or reason, what determines one person to be blind and another to be sighted.
Is God putting pre-mortal spirits in the position they need to be in for their temporal experience on this earth? are pre-mortal spirits freely choosing to occupy different roles on their own in an effort to fulfill this divine intention, based upon self-inspection - or is the conflict that occurs in the pre-mortal existence being continued here on earth?...or, without the pre-mortal, does God have an intention with every person created, where the lesson is not the same for everyone? Does the blind man need to learn the same compassion for the sighted as the sighted would learn for the blind?

The passage does not in itself specify team effort. I realize to consider that we have to look to a broader context. In my understanding team effort does not change the expectation of individuals to take responsibility to do their best however in a team someone else's shortcoming is to balanced by teammates. Perhaps one teammate is limited in one way but can accomplish other things which contribute to the success of the body of Christ.

If I add a preexistence to the picture I do not think that changes the functioning of the team.

I believe this scenario assumes a sort of "tableau rosa" spirit across all peoples which comes into being when a person is formed...but lacks resolution with the whole "i knew you before I formed thee in the womb" notion.

[_moksha]

John 9:2-5 The Message Bible
True Blindness

9 1-2 Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?”

3-5 Jesus said, “You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do.

So Jesus is essentially saying, take a look at Medical Science and Genetics for answers regarding racial differences and developmental aberrations. Seek out accurate causations and not primitive reasons like sin, pre-valiance or the heavy-handedness of God.

[_huckelberry]

The passage does not in itself specify team effort. I realize to consider that we have to look to a broader context. In my understanding team effort does not change the expectation of individuals to take responsibility to do their best however in a team someone else's shortcoming is to balanced by teammates. Perhaps one teammate is limited in one way but can accomplish other things which contribute to the success of the body of Christ.

If I add a preexistence to the picture I do not think that changes the functioning of the team.

I believe this scenario assumes a sort of "tableau rosa" spirit across all peoples which comes into being when a person is formed...but lacks resolution with the whole "i knew you before I formed thee in the womb" notion.

Subgenius, I am not seeing a connection to blank tablet view of our birth. I can easily imagine crucial personal traits being born in any sort of situation. It is a persons character, intelligence, courage and compassion which are important to who they are. I think who a person really is can grow in all sorts of situations.

Though I can imagine character coming from the preexistence I would not feel comrortable picturing myself without recognizing the contribution of family. Do you think we had faimily in the preexistence? It would help us to understand the aim of team effort in salvation goes beyond the individual accomplishment. But even if we lacked close families before we find that in this life and discover its importance.

[_subgenius]

John 9:2-5 The Message Bible
True Blindness

9 1-2 Walking down the street, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked, “Rabbi, who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?”

3-5 Jesus said, “You’re asking the wrong question. You’re looking for someone to blame. There is no such cause-effect here. Look instead for what God can do.

So Jesus is essentially saying, take a look at Medical Science and Genetics for answers regarding racial differences and developmental aberrations. Seek out accurate causations and not primitive reasons like sin, pre-valiance or the heavy-handedness of God.

"The Message Bible"?
Your quote here is way off the even-close-to-accurate-translation reservation.
John 9:3 more accurately translates to:
"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Surely Christ is speaking directly to the notion that a particular sin created this man's blindness, not that the blind man, or blind man's parents, were indeed sinless.
And I still maintain that the context of sin that the Rabbi is inquiring about is one that is of this earth - which is consistent with Christ's response. This being further supported by Christ's curing this blind man with "spit" and dust formed into clay...an emblem of the Gospel, no doubt (Contrast this blind healing with the blind healing of the 2 men in Jericho where Christ merely touches the afflicted, Matt 20:29-34, other occasions have Him healing just by voice). Note that Christ use spit-clay to heal the deaf-mute as well (the only other spit-clay healing).

If you notice each case of Christ with an afflicted person (deaf, blind, etc..) we learn that these afflicted people are without an awareness...the deaf man cannot hear the voices of love and the blind cannot see looks of compassion...and so their affliction is being equated to their spiritual condition...their spiritual disease is being linked to their physical ailment, inextricably. Thus we see Christ healing them, not just physically, but spiritually. This is why the manner by which He heals an affliction cannot be ignored....this is why their cure is beyond mere medicine and lies in Hope and Love.
Nevertheless, these afflicted persons all represent varying levels of weakness in Faith...in righteousness. Yet we understand that it was no specific sin, here on earth, that caused these afflictions - but their physical and spiritual affliction is evident.

nevertheless, when one takes this evidence in context, there is still no resolution between Christ's statement about the cause being "not what you think it is" - and what the cause may actually be. Is it for us to know? perhaps, and perhaps not...but when we consider the evidence from the New Testament we can clearly see an argument for "knowing thee before you were formed" being made. And of we were known before being formed then it may be possible that our presence on this earth with any particular affliction and talent may have been intentional, correct?

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, I am not seeing a connection to blank tablet view of our birth. I can easily imagine crucial personal traits being born in any sort of situation. It is a persons character, intelligence, courage and compassion which are important to who they are. I think who a person really is can grow in all sorts of situations.

I agree with the notion that person's spirit grows, develops, and even changes during its time here on earth. But the notion of tableau rosa would apply to any notion that we all begin our time here on equal footing. That each and every person begins at a theoretical point zero spiritually - each equipped with the same spiritual potential and the same spiritual tools and the same spiritual strengths...all at an unequivocal equality. This would seem to be unjust from God...why offer unequal challenges to equal spirits?
Or if the case was that each spirit began its existence here on unequal footing then is this inequality from a pre-mortal stage of development or if there was no pre-mortal existence, a design flaw at its genesis upon being created in the afflicted body?
But, if as you say, a person's experiences determine who they really are then without a pre-mortal existence they must surely be without any experience upon their creation...ergo a tableau rosa spirit.

Though I can imagine character coming from the preexistence I would not feel comrortable picturing myself without recognizing the contribution of family. Do you think we had faimily in the preexistence? It would help us to understand the aim of team effort in salvation goes beyond the individual accomplishment. But even if we lacked close families before we find that in this life and discover its importance.

While i understand, and subscribe, to the importance of the "team effort" -especially family - i cannot help but add that our pesky free will can both undermine and overemphasize that influence.
That being said, in the vein of preexistence, we certainly may be compensating for, or building upon the "character, intelligence, courage and compassion" that we developed in the preexistence. And if this is the case, then necessarily our vehicle acquired here may certainly be detailed in a manner to facilitate such refinements.
Now given how Christ's episodes of healing were most certainly linking physical affliction to the affliction of the spirit it stands to some degree of reasoning that these afflictions are inextricable. So, the question remains as to how these afflictions would relate to a particular character development from the preexistence....yes?

[_huckelberry]

Subgenius, I am not seeing a connection to blank tablet view of our birth. I can easily imagine crucial personal traits being born in any sort of situation. It is a persons character, intelligence, courage and compassion which are important to who they are. I think who a person really is can grow in all sorts of situations.

I agree with the notion that person's spirit grows, develops, and even changes during its time here on earth. But the notion of tableau rosa would apply to any notion that we all begin our time here on equal footing. That each and every person begins at a theoretical point zero spiritually - each equipped with the same spiritual potential and the same spiritual tools and the same spiritual strengths...all at an unequivocal equality. This would seem to be unjust from God...why offer unequal challenges to equal spirits?
Or if the case was that each spirit began its existence here on unequal footing then is this inequality from a pre-mortal stage of development or if there was no pre-mortal existence, a design flaw at its genesis upon being created in the afflicted body?
But, if as you say, a person's experiences determine who they really are then without a pre-mortal existence they must surely be without any experience upon their creation...ergo a tableau rosa spirit.

I guess I should clarify. I do not believe all people start out equal. I believe people have unequal abilities.I do not believe all of our characteristics come from our experience here. I do not claim to have a complete picture of where our characteristics come from. I am agnostic about a preexistence. I do think we inherit a good deal from our earthly ancestry.

I was proposing that though there could be situations where individual characteristics could influence divine selection as to where and when a person is born. I however do not see any reason to be sure about that because all human experience can contribute. I cannot think of a reason to believe God is oblieged to give people equal challanges or challenges only designed to fit them. People get all sorts of challenges.

Even though it is not my view, I am not really against the idea that peoples life challenges are more fit to their needs as you propose. I am less happy with the idea that disadvantaged people are born that way due their preexisting shortcomings. I can just as easlily see such people being chosen because they are stronger and more able to deal with the difficulties of being born in disadvantaged circumstances.