In the philosophical world, the argument of God’s existence has allowed for theists to sharpen their models and rebuttals. One area in which the atheists seem to have an arrow for which there is no shield is the problem of evil. This apparent philosophical contradiction arises from the classical Christian model of theology. Namely that God is all powerful, perfectly good, and evil exists (Pojman 69-70). A common question that religious people hear is- if God is all loving, why would he allow for these evil things to happen? The classical Christian’s response to this would reside in arguments of free-will and the development of human virtue. Some weaker arguments consist of claiming that God is not all powerful or all-knowing and could not have prevented evil from emerging in the world. Because of the tendency for the patristic fathers to be influenced by Greek philosophy, the general understanding of an absolute God was a more prevalent position to take (i.e. the Greek absolutists model). Although these defenses can be considered plausible responses to the atheists’ attack, the Mormon approach to the problem of evil is superior, in that it rejects the ex nihilo creation and adopts a theodicy-esque defense to avoid the conventional philosophical issues faced by the classical Christian model.
During the early years of the Christian church, the gnostics held heretical views that God did not create the universe ex nihilo. This was one of the argument points that the classical Christians had difficulty reconciling with. “The contradiction implicit in the existence both of a benevolent divine omnipotence and of evil was not regarded as an obstacle to belief…The enlightenment saw this situation change radically: the existence of evil metamorphosed into a challenge to the credibility and coherence of Christian faith itself” (McGrath 187). Classical Christians could see that with the position that God had created all things out of nothing begged the question as to why God would create/allow evil in this world. Classical theists will often claim that the world created is the perfect mix of good and evil. God could not have created anything better. The strongest argument put forth seems to state that it would be logically impossible for God to create creatures of free-will and have them not commit evil. But this premise begs the question, what of natural evil? It is quite evident at this point that classical theists can find a way to trudge through these attacks, but holes are appearing faster then they have time to cover for. Gnostics attacked these weak points and claimed that the matter of the universe was not created by God but put together by God. Mormons hold a similar view and insist that the universe was organized by a creator and the spirits of man and matter itself is as eternal as God himself. One can see the advantage that the Mormon theological model has over the classical Christian model: it does not place the responsibility of evil’s existence on God. Not basing the creation of the universe on the singularity of a point, dependent on a necessary being, allows for much more philosophical flexibility in reasoning through the problem of evil. Mormons would approach the problem of evil by claiming that God is all-loving and desires that humankind will eventually be exalted into perfection. God, the organizer of matter preserves mankind’s agency to choose between right and wrong, thus the existence of evil is simply a product of man’s choice, not God’s creation. God is believed to have attained a higher state than the spirits of man and his role as organizer of the universe is one of a powerful deity that will provide the tools necessary to reach a state of exaltation. The Mormon approach has an advantage over classical Christians in answering these questions because of the drastically different starting points of each theology.
The theodicy defense is commonly adopted to defend against the problem of evil. Essentially it states that the composite results of both good and evil results in an overall good that manifests God’s power. The rebuttals that atheists use is that this would prove that God is not omnibenevolent because he allows for some bad to happen. This utilitarian view of God often turns off many people to the idea of his existence. Many will question why they would be inclined to believe in God when instead they would often be left to wonder why God has not intervened and stopped evil from occurring. Additionally, the questions may be posed as to why God could not allow for less suffering and why were events such as the holocaust allowed to happen? The theodicy defense depends on the assumptions of absolutism and thus Mormon theology rightfully does not accept this defense in its entirety (Hurtado 1). Thus, this paper uses the term theodicy-esque defense.
Mormon theology takes on this defense by claiming that in the scope of the doctrinal plan known as the plan of salvation, humankind had agency in a pre-existence to choose whether they wanted to live on earth. A common objection to this claim would be if humankind consented to come to this earth in a pre-existence, is God still liable for evil that occurred because he didn’t prevent us from experiencing its full effects? One could argue that the pre-existence acts like a consensual contract. The conditions that will be potentially faced are transparent to all those who chose to come to earth. God is not culpable, because humankind knowing full well the challenges that would occur, still chose to accept these conditions. Also included in this doctrine is the knowledge of knowing all who came to earth would face adversity and challenges. A theodicy-esque defense that the Mormons adopt would consist of something similarly illustrated in the book of Alma in the Book of Momon:
“How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames…The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day” (Alma 14:9-11)
One can see from this passage out of the Book of Mormon that the greatest welfare of God is supposedly manifested in the end. Regardless of the great evils that are occurring to the women and children, Alma claims that it is necessary to bring forth justice in the end. The main difference in the approach that Mormon take regarding the theodicy defense is with the starting point of the pre-existence. This presupposes that all who came to earth would know that evil and suffering would occur, but it would result in the best outcome for all those who remained faithful to the commandments of God. This approach coupled with the Mormon’s belief in a pre-existence and agency helps justify the existence of evil without diminishing the omnibenevolence of God. Mormon theology seems to suggest that God is not all-powerful in the traditional sense but is subservient to eternal laws that prevents him from intervening in all affairs. The moral-agency of man and the plan of salvation results in the ultimate goodness of God manifested through both good and evil. This approach is superior to the classical Christian model and is logically consistent with the rejection of creation ex nihilo.
One can see how the Mormon theological model avoids the philosophical issues of God’s omnibenevolence and omnipotence by adopting a different starting point. There are many classical theists responses to the problem of evil, addressing arguments such as the free-will objections, evolution and evil, natural evil, etc. but all the classical defenses against these claims garner too many philosophical issues. The rejection of creation ex-nihilo and adoption of a theodicy-esque defense allows for a strong justification of the existence of evil without contradicting the Mormon definition of deity. For these reasons the Mormon model has obvious advantages to the classical Christian model.
Works Cited
Hardy, Grant. The Book of Mormon. University of Illinois Press, 2006.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical theology: an introduction to the history of Christian thought. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Pojman, Louis P., and Michael C. Rea. Philosophy of religion: an anthology. Cengage Learning, 2015.
“The Problem of Evil.” Christopher Hurtado, 26 Apr. 2013, christopherhurtado.com/the-problem-of-evil/.