Comments on: Joseph Smith’s Theodicy

By: gilgamesh

gilgamesh — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:24:17 +0000

The Book of Mormon clearly points to a finite God in Alma with Justice vs. Mercy. Alma notes that, without absolute justice, God would cease to be God. Even giving a hypothetical limitation, in this case, opens the idea that God could cease to be God, therefor to remain God some guidelines apply which make God limited.

Whether or not Joseph agreed with Alma can be up for discussion.

Also, according to Eugen England, the “Weeping God of Mormonism” found in Moses also points to a limited God. Again, whether or not Joseph agreed is up for speculation. My assumption is he did.

By: smb

smb — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:46:34 +0000

This finite theodicy you describe is not something Smith actively explored, nor did it figure prominently in his idea-world, nor would he I think have endorsed it if presented to him. I hate to sound like a broken record, but his “head” was the top of a Chain of Being, and that Chain, as Smith’s actual theodicy, argued that evil was required for cosmic balance. Smith situated it more in terms of moral trial, but he affirmed the notion that evil had a special role to play in human exaltation.

By: WVS

WVS — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:44:02 +0000

From the believer’s point of view, I think the question is very difficult. One can think of Joseph as struggling with information pouring “through him,” trying to put things together for the Saints. Was Joseph’s view a fragmentary cosmology, where he tried to fill in the blanks with reason? We see Joseph’s reflection in a cracked mirror in two ways, the records of what he said are fragmentary, and he purposely held back things and reserved others for small private audiences. I think he may have understood more clearly than he was recorded, and perhaps more clearly than he could express. So we struggle when we try to understand him categorically. Moreover, I think his colleagues and successors struggled too. They clearly had great reverence for what he said, but also some frustration – we witnessed that seventy years after KFD and for many, still today. Perhaps as a result, I think, the Church does not focus on Joseph’s favorite subjects at all – and they are the ones that impacted his theodicy in many cases. There is not enough detail to damp legitimate divergent views, or perhaps in some cases, the subjects don’t seem relevant. I’m hoping for a long interview at some point – I imagine there will be a long line.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:40:53 +0000

I think the comments about the difficulty systematizing Joseph’s thought are suggesting that Joseph didn’t have it all worked out. I agree with that. So, in many cases, I would sign up for option 3. from the post. My comment in #1 was saying that the example you gave in the post is not one of those times.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:07:55 +0000

I appreciate all the comments so far; like i said, i enjoy a discussion on theodicy. However, I would rather get back on the question of if it is fair to say that Joseph believed this. Historically, I dont see Joseph believing in a “finite” God (although I personally agree with the theology that Clark and others have mentioned).
My question, again, is more historical. Do you think we project our systematizing of our theology back on Joseph, or did he understand all this stuff?

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:10:00 +0000

The problem with (6) are natural evils like earthquakes, disease and so forth. Clearly it seems reasonable to assume God could have put us somewhere without them. Why didn’t he then? If we say it has some purpose (which seems the natural answer for a Mormon) then what is that purpose?

By: gilgamesh

gilgamesh — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:52:19 +0000

“But why was it necessary?”

I think this is a good question. I always look at it in terms of progression. If we want to progress, then we must experience evil and suffering. The presuposes a few things, hoewever,

1.) Progression is a choice
2.) Evil and suffering are independent of God
3.) There must needs be opposition in all things.
4.) Without evil there could be no good
5.) Part of being a god is knowing our limitations and boundaries.
6.) God is limited and cannot keep evil or suffering from occuring or He would trump our agency
7.) Free agency is an eternal principle independent of God’s power

By: Joe Geisner

Joe Geisner — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:06:44 +0000

I would suggest a fourth alternative. In Joseph’s day, much like our own, the problem with evil was discussed and most if not all of Joseph’s innovations were readily available in printed form for Joseph and others to read and study.

I think J. is correct that systematizing Joseph’s theology is difficult, but B.H. Robert’s did one heck of a good job. Talmage with “Articles of Faith” is still one of the best works, and I think a great attempt at systematizing.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:40:03 +0000

The idea that God has his hand in all things isn't incompatible with the idea that God is, in some senses, finite. (With finite here meaning limited) It's important to realize that really what is being argued is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo as that relates to the problem of evil. Mormons have God as maximally great but, because of the doctrine or pre-existent and uncreated matter, have God very limited relative to the God developed between 200 - 500 AD who is the ground of all existence and by extension the one responsible. A good book for the earlier Jewish view which parallels the Mormon view is Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil. There we have Yahweh battling against the forces of chaos. A creation that is endlessly under threat and is endlessly repeated. In the mainstream Christian view this makes no sense as everything that exists (including the chaos) is created by God. That has significant implications for the problem of evil. Now God can be in and through all things however. And, as I've argued, this entails that while Mormon finitism avoids the logical problem of evil it leaves what I call the evidentiary problem of evil. That is why do we have the evils we experience around us. One solution (posed by Dennis Potter) is that God is so busy elsewhere that he can't do anything more. He's doing as much as he can. This seems pretty implausible on numerous grounds. The better solution, which I first saw posed by Nate Oman, is that the problem of evil isn't a problem since we all freely chose to come to this world. Therefore we and not God are responsible for experiencing the evils we do. It's analogous to being burned when we put our hand in a pot of water. It's our fault and not the fault of the person boiling the water. The problem with this is that, according to LDS theology, we chose to come to this world because it was in some sense necessary. But why was it necessary? So at best this view merely pushes the problem of evil back a step.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:07:17 +0000

I think that it is an uphill battle systematizing Joseph’s thoughts. As far as theodicy goes, when push comes to shove, as in the case of infant mortality, Joseph went to a limited form of predestination, something that was otherwise incompatible with some of his other more progressive attitudes.