Mars and the Problem of Pain

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by JohnW »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:32 pm
It's an ethical dilemma that would make for good dystopian sci-fi. But Imagine this series of plot twists:

- After years of hardship colonizing Mars, and nearly dead, Steve Cray, the football brainiac just watched the last of his team succumb to suffocation in the E12 crop sector. A stranger approaches with oxygen, and as Steve begins to revive, the stranger explains it's all a simulation by the legendary Dr. Zod.
- As Steve's comes to accept the stranger is telling the truth, he grows angry with Dr. Zod, and in his strengthening thoughts, plots to kill Zod.
- But then, as Steve bristles with holy revenge, the stranger shows the contract that Steve signed, and further, shows electronic correspondence between him and Zod proving Steve helped design the experiment and write the contract.
- Back in the real world, Steve struggles to bridge the two worlds of his mind. He comes to accept the experiment, although, having been on the receiving end, it's a resigned acceptance, rather than the enthusiastic embrace of his former self.
- Steve once again finds himself working actively within the top ranks of the company, and his matured self operates at the top tier of Fowler's Stages of Faith. And when his team from the simulation harvests the real E12 for the first time, it is a victory of the program, notwithstanding the pain of three team members getting eaten alive by Mars crickets.
- But then, just as all seems right again, a stranger approaches Steve and reveals Dr. Zod is an alien, and that the real Mars and all of its horrors, the earth and we as a species, and anything in the sky we'd ever reach was all a creation by Dr. Zod.
I like the continuation of the sci-fi, especially the crickets.

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:32 pm
The problem of evil in our time is less about the brute compatibility of God and evil, but the problem with senseless evil. Imagine the Mars experiment designed with senseless horrors that can't possibly have any teaching value. How many babies must die horribly of dysentery for ever one Rusty M. who victoriously fathers a son in a luxurious getaway lodge after having been dealt a brutal hand of 8 daughters?
Yeah, I would argue this is the biggest flaw to the whole thing. I mentioned this briefly. Some of the pain and evil just seems extreme. Most rational people would look at those extremes and say to themselves, "Really? How in the world is this part of God's plan?" That is still an open question in my mind. One of the only things I can think of that even comes close is that whatever a god must endure when they get their full-fledged power has to be even more extreme. It must be so terrible that we will look back on the greatest horrors of this life and think they were fairly mild previews of what a god has to suffer. Unfortunately, this isn't all that palatable either. If that is actually the case, I could understand some of the quotes by Joseph Smith and others that say something like those who aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom wouldn't ever want to, not in a million years.

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:32 pm
If the simulation is the logical conclusion of the most clear thinking people, then it wouldn't work, because just as the clearest thinking people become Mormon, accept the Mormon plan of salvation, and think through the thought experiments proving that this life is a simulation, the best and brightest, clearest thinking candidates of the Mars program will come to reason that they also are in a simulation.

Alternatively, supposing the Mars simulation is like our life on earth, it would be really weird for agents of the company to spend countless hours trying to convince participants that they were part of a simulation, and that only a simulation where they didn't know it was a simulation could prepare them for the real Mars. If life on earth is supposed to be an immersive character test, then it's pointless to have missionaries banging on the door constantly trying to convince you that it's a character test, and then live your life every day trying to convince yourself it's a character test and you have to do the right thing. If that works better, then instead of building the immersive Mars experiment, they would conduct a disinformation campaign convincing people that they were in a test, which emboldens them to take braver actions.
I think this might be were the analogy breaks down. Lds theology is fairly universalist. In this life, we are all in the same boat. We are all being tested, and we all have the opportunity to be saved, regardless of whether we joined the church or not in this life. This means a successful outcome of the simulation is not baptism or conversion. The closest thing I can come up with is that at a fundamental level, this life is testing whether we can be trusted with power. Will we use the power we have to help others or to step on people as we try to better our position. Do we manipulate people to get our way? Even if we are fairly impotent, do we lash out at people in anger, using what little power we have in an attempt to make others as miserable as we are? Or do we use our power to help others? Even if we are fairly impotent, do we use what ability we have to sooth or uplift? If this life really is a god simulation, I would think this would one of the fundamental things being tested. This can be done by the rich and the poor, the Latter-day Saint and the atheist.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by drumdude »

JohnW wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:08 am
drumdude wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:05 pm
John,

Do you think that God created the simulation, or universe? Or does the simulation or universe exist independently of God?

My thinking on it is that Mormonism’s God is so limited that it is even not capable of ending all evil/pain, like he is in traditional Christianity.
There could be at least two options. God could have created the environment where the simulation takes place, or the environment may already exist and he is just using that for his purposes. Let me explain a bit. Imagine a wilderness survivor expert who is trying to train other wilderness survivors. He could rent a warehouse and build an environment where he is in control of all the parameters. This way the trainees would have an environment where they could practice wilderness survival skills while at the same time being fairly safe from extreme danger. The second option is for the teacher to find an environment out in nature that would be considered a basic-level environment. Maybe a temperate forest without any large predators as opposed to a rainforest with lots of poisonous critters. The expert might even put a fence or something around the area to make sure large predators stay out. That way the trainees would have the same opportunity to learn, but any pain or evil in the environment isn't really the fault of the wilderness survivor expert. Now if the expert put deadly creatures in his warehouse, he might be at fault.

I think either option could be compatible with Lds theology. The word creation in the lexicon would just mean slightly different things.
I think an even closer analogy would be how human parents raise their children. Mormon God in this case would be essentially no different from a human father. Human fathers can do their best to shield their children from harm when appropriate and use it to teach lessons when appropriate. They aren’t responsible for all the evil in the world and they can’t take it all away even if they wanted.

I think you are correct that this form of God is a decent enough answer to the problem of evil. But it has a lot of other implications that aren’t compatible with traditional Christian thought. So in my opinion you end up solving a couple problems while unfortunately at the same time creating a thousand more.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by dastardly stem »

JohnW wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:57 am
Yeah, reading over my post again, it may not be that clear. Yes, years ago I thought it was sufficient to believe along the same lines as you've mentioned that the God of Latter-day Saint theology doesn't have anything to do with the problem of evil because he didn't create any of it. As for pain, that isn't quite as easy to dismiss.
I've taken pain as part of the concept of evil on this question. Senseless suffering, as Gadianton points out, seems to be the loudest concern people have as it pertains the problem of evil. If there is a benevolent God why does he sit idly by and allow senseless suffering? If God sees suffering as a means to an end and necessary evil, then I see how that can kind of work in a believers mind. But I think there are added complications on that view.
JohnW post wrote: But even if he didn't create it, that still leaves the problem of why doesn't he get rid of evil or pain. He must either be impotent or not benevolent. The simulation analogy is the comparison I make to allow me to think God might still have lots of power but his hands could be tied.
I think that's about right. On LDS thought, God's hands must be tied. They call it God's plan but in reality He didn't author the plan or engineer it. It's the eternal plan--or the only way to get a few of the eternal spirits up to the level of godhood, and perhaps as a consequence, the only way to get billions of people, spirit people at least, to choose satan's path and maintain evil. That seems to be where LDS thought gets pretty ugly. Many people opt out because God appears high on power and lacking in concern, but in so doing they apparently choose eternal torment, and God's apparently cool with that. "i can't make them want more" or something. "they don't like the idea that people will suffer eternally? Well, then they must suffer eternally."
That also may be why someone could allow for God to command both things that appear good and evil. If his hands are ultimately tied due to the fact that he can't ruin the simulation/test, then he could command things that appear evil to us, but are actually required to maintain the environment. Yeah, I know, it doesn't help much. You could argue it just dismisses the whole problem in a similar way that Mainstream Christians do. It seems to help in my mind (maybe because he has an ultimate purpose and isn't just commanding things willy nilly), but that may not be the case for others.
As a believer I wondered if I had made a big mistake going along with it. God set it up so many billions or one third of his people would suffer eternally? He also set it up so some of those who didn't follow after the one third would suffer eternally? I wondered what I was going to do for eternity. How could I enjoy some exaltation knowing billions of my siblings, if you will, were in eternal torment? That exaltation as I was taught was nothing more than eternal torment, to me, as I contemplated it. Apparently God needs to condemn many billions in order to exalt a few? And that was somehow good for Him? He would exalt Himself in the process--"look at all these I exalted peeps spending their eternity praising and exalting me". It was all too disturbing I admit.

I appreciate your responses and your engagement. I don't envy you. Those are some tough conundrums, as they say, to have in one's head and heart.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Rivendale
God
Posts: 1152
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by Rivendale »

JohnW wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:24 am
Rivendale wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:26 pm
I have a difficult time with moral probation to teach infinite ideals. I also have a problem with infinite intelligences buying into something they know could paralyze them forever.
Of course, I could see why people might have viewed it as a rigged system and refused to participate.
Rigged system indeed. We have no choice what soil we are planted in. We have no choice regarding our genetic predispositions that impact decision making. Some would say we have no free will at all. We have preferences and choices but remain clueless as to how these choices are made on a subconscious level. God would know what information presented to us would tip the scales towards belief but somehow he remains silent to the majority of the world.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by JohnW »

drumdude wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:07 am
JohnW wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:08 am
There could be at least two options. God could have created the environment where the simulation takes place, or the environment may already exist and he is just using that for his purposes. Let me explain a bit. Imagine a wilderness survivor expert who is trying to train other wilderness survivors. He could rent a warehouse and build an environment where he is in control of all the parameters. This way the trainees would have an environment where they could practice wilderness survival skills while at the same time being fairly safe from extreme danger. The second option is for the teacher to find an environment out in nature that would be considered a basic-level environment. Maybe a temperate forest without any large predators as opposed to a rainforest with lots of poisonous critters. The expert might even put a fence or something around the area to make sure large predators stay out. That way the trainees would have the same opportunity to learn, but any pain or evil in the environment isn't really the fault of the wilderness survivor expert. Now if the expert put deadly creatures in his warehouse, he might be at fault.

I think either option could be compatible with Lds theology. The word creation in the lexicon would just mean slightly different things.
I think an even closer analogy would be how human parents raise their children. Mormon God in this case would be essentially no different from a human father. Human fathers can do their best to shield their children from harm when appropriate and use it to teach lessons when appropriate. They aren’t responsible for all the evil in the world and they can’t take it all away even if they wanted.

I think you are correct that this form of God is a decent enough answer to the problem of evil. But it has a lot of other implications that aren’t compatible with traditional Christian thought. So in my opinion you end up solving a couple problems while unfortunately at the same time creating a thousand more.
Yeah, agreed that the best analogy is human parents. That is pretty familiar with most people. Agreed on the opening a thousand more issues. We tend to think of God as the Mainstream Christian God during some times and the Lds God other times. We don't recognize that there are some fundamental inconsistencies between the two. I guess we can't have our cake and eat it? Ultimately, I prefer the Father God of Lds theology, but I am of course terribly biased.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by JohnW »

dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:20 pm
JohnW wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:57 am
Yeah, reading over my post again, it may not be that clear. Yes, years ago I thought it was sufficient to believe along the same lines as you've mentioned that the God of Latter-day Saint theology doesn't have anything to do with the problem of evil because he didn't create any of it. As for pain, that isn't quite as easy to dismiss.
I've taken pain as part of the concept of evil on this question. Senseless suffering, as Gadianton points out, seems to be the loudest concern people have as it pertains the problem of evil. If there is a benevolent God why does he sit idly by and allow senseless suffering? If God sees suffering as a means to an end and necessary evil, then I see how that can kind of work in a believers mind. But I think there are added complications on that view.
The only thing I would add here is that there is senseless suffering and there is suffering that appears senseless to us with limited perspective. I know for most people that argument doesn't help, so it isn't often useful to bring up. It is just that sometimes we get upset about injustice or things that seem senseless only to learn down the road there actually was some sense or justice involved. I fully expect that could be the situation here. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but something along the lines of thinking some rule was dumb as a kid and then as a parent realizing why your parents put that rule in place.
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:20 pm
JohnW post wrote: But even if he didn't create it, that still leaves the problem of why doesn't he get rid of evil or pain. He must either be impotent or not benevolent. The simulation analogy is the comparison I make to allow me to think God might still have lots of power but his hands could be tied.
I think that's about right. On LDS thought, God's hands must be tied. They call it God's plan but in reality He didn't author the plan or engineer it. It's the eternal plan--or the only way to get a few of the eternal spirits up to the level of godhood, and perhaps as a consequence, the only way to get billions of people, spirit people at least, to choose satan's path and maintain evil. That seems to be where LDS thought gets pretty ugly. Many people opt out because God appears high on power and lacking in concern, but in so doing they apparently choose eternal torment, and God's apparently cool with that. "i can't make them want more" or something. "they don't like the idea that people will suffer eternally? Well, then they must suffer eternally."
That also may be why someone could allow for God to command both things that appear good and evil. If his hands are ultimately tied due to the fact that he can't ruin the simulation/test, then he could command things that appear evil to us, but are actually required to maintain the environment. Yeah, I know, it doesn't help much. You could argue it just dismisses the whole problem in a similar way that Mainstream Christians do. It seems to help in my mind (maybe because he has an ultimate purpose and isn't just commanding things willy nilly), but that may not be the case for others.
As a believer I wondered if I had made a big mistake going along with it. God set it up so many billions or one third of his people would suffer eternally? He also set it up so some of those who didn't follow after the one third would suffer eternally? I wondered what I was going to do for eternity. How could I enjoy some exaltation knowing billions of my siblings, if you will, were in eternal torment? That exaltation as I was taught was nothing more than eternal torment, to me, as I contemplated it. Apparently God needs to condemn many billions in order to exalt a few? And that was somehow good for Him? He would exalt Himself in the process--"look at all these I exalted peeps spending their eternity praising and exalting me". It was all too disturbing I admit.

I appreciate your responses and your engagement. I don't envy you. Those are some tough conundrums, as they say, to have in one's head and heart.
You keep using the term eternal suffering. That is probably on of the main differences between the way we are thinking about this. I like the scripture that says something along the lines of eternal punishment uses the word eternal because God's name is eternal. That just means it is God's punishment. Even though that scripture has always seemed a little cryptic to me, its intent appears to be to downplay the severity of the punishment. I've always considered the "punishment" reserved for the 1/3 of the spirits before this life and the people going to outer darkness as nothing more or less than giving them exactly what they want. They want God to leave them alone, so he leaves them alone. Any punishment comes from that extreme distance from God. When we are left on our own, we often punish ourselves. That could be considered eternal suffering. Yes, that is non-standard way to think about those going to outer darkness, but it seems like a reasonable position to take. It also makes God's character a whole lot more palatable.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by JohnW »

Rivendale wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:00 pm
God would know what information presented to us would tip the scales towards belief but somehow he remains silent to the majority of the world.
As I mentioned above, I don't think belief in the correct God is the primary goal of this life (or even belief in God at all). Consider this: Maybe we were all infused with the goal of this life when we came down here. That infusion is called our conscious. We know what is good and evil. This seems to be generally true regardless of people's religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Lots of people ignore their conscious for various reasons, regardless of their beliefs. Maybe the real test of this life is to see who will follow their conscious and become better people. Maybe becoming like God is just religious speak for becoming the person your conscious is modeling. This would be a scenario where it would be in God's best interest to remain relatively silent for the vast majority of the world and only intervene in extremely specific cases. Anyway, just a possible construct to think about.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7046
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by canpakes »

JohnW wrote:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:33 am
I've always considered the "punishment" reserved for the 1/3 of the spirits before this life and the people going to outer darkness as nothing more or less than giving them exactly what they want. They want God to leave them alone, so he leaves them alone. Any punishment comes from that extreme distance from God. When we are left on our own, we often punish ourselves. That could be considered eternal suffering. Yes, that is non-standard way to think about those going to outer darkness, but it seems like a reasonable position to take. It also makes God's character a whole lot more palatable.
In this interpretation, does ‘leave them alone’ mean alone as a singular spirit without chance for contact with others (a solitary banishment of sorts), or alone within a community of like-minded spirits that wish to eschew God?
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by dastardly stem »

JohnW wrote:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:33 am
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:20 pm
I've taken pain as part of the concept of evil on this question. Senseless suffering, as Gadianton points out, seems to be the loudest concern people have as it pertains the problem of evil. If there is a benevolent God why does he sit idly by and allow senseless suffering? If God sees suffering as a means to an end and necessary evil, then I see how that can kind of work in a believers mind. But I think there are added complications on that view.
The only thing I would add here is that there is senseless suffering and there is suffering that appears senseless to us with limited perspective. I know for most people that argument doesn't help, so it isn't often useful to bring up. It is just that sometimes we get upset about injustice or things that seem senseless only to learn down the road there actually was some sense or justice involved. I fully expect that could be the situation here. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but something along the lines of thinking some rule was dumb as a kid and then as a parent realizing why your parents put that rule in place.
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:20 pm
I think that's about right. On LDS thought, God's hands must be tied. They call it God's plan but in reality He didn't author the plan or engineer it. It's the eternal plan--or the only way to get a few of the eternal spirits up to the level of godhood, and perhaps as a consequence, the only way to get billions of people, spirit people at least, to choose satan's path and maintain evil. That seems to be where LDS thought gets pretty ugly. Many people opt out because God appears high on power and lacking in concern, but in so doing they apparently choose eternal torment, and God's apparently cool with that. "i can't make them want more" or something. "they don't like the idea that people will suffer eternally? Well, then they must suffer eternally."


As a believer I wondered if I had made a big mistake going along with it. God set it up so many billions or one third of his people would suffer eternally? He also set it up so some of those who didn't follow after the one third would suffer eternally? I wondered what I was going to do for eternity. How could I enjoy some exaltation knowing billions of my siblings, if you will, were in eternal torment? That exaltation as I was taught was nothing more than eternal torment, to me, as I contemplated it. Apparently God needs to condemn many billions in order to exalt a few? And that was somehow good for Him? He would exalt Himself in the process--"look at all these I exalted peeps spending their eternity praising and exalting me". It was all too disturbing I admit.

I appreciate your responses and your engagement. I don't envy you. Those are some tough conundrums, as they say, to have in one's head and heart.
You keep using the term eternal suffering. That is probably on of the main differences between the way we are thinking about this. I like the scripture that says something along the lines of eternal punishment uses the word eternal because God's name is eternal. That just means it is God's punishment. Even though that scripture has always seemed a little cryptic to me, its intent appears to be to downplay the severity of the punishment. I've always considered the "punishment" reserved for the 1/3 of the spirits before this life and the people going to outer darkness as nothing more or less than giving them exactly what they want. They want God to leave them alone, so he leaves them alone. Any punishment comes from that extreme distance from God. When we are left on our own, we often punish ourselves. That could be considered eternal suffering. Yes, that is non-standard way to think about those going to outer darkness, but it seems like a reasonable position to take. It also makes God's character a whole lot more palatable.
Hey, do what you need to do to get by, I say. I use suffering because that is how it's typically been depicted. For instance, in the Book of Mormon Abinadi condemns:
The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord;
Sounds far more like suffering than just being left alone. King Benjamin (guess I guess I'm showing my preference for the Book of Mosiah):
there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.
(2:33)

And to clarify from the D&C when it says Eternal Punishment is God's punishment (19:11-15)
Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
It seems to me the message given was always saying the punishment God gives causes the worst kind of suffering imaginable given Mormonism. Interesting we have such different takes. From God inflicting the worst on people to, in your view, God just setting them aside and leaving them alone. Admittedly I never got the view you express.

On the devil and his angels, Nephi 9:
wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.
It appears God has prepared for them a place of eternal punishment, or as termed in the D&C God's punishment. To me I get the impression he delights in punishing those who dare question HIs ways, or push against Him. I suppose it would be much nicer if there wasn't a torturous place where people go to be punished as if they are burning forever in fire. But that is what he teaches.

Anyway, I would say, if one believes in God, Mormonism and all of that, it'd be really really good to ignore most of scripture, ignore most of what the prophets say and imagine a much better God, a much better religion. I don't think you're alone among Mormons who do that (nor, to broaden the scope, alone among Christians who do that). Others do as well and it's encouraging. Hopefully that view spreads among the other believers and leaks into the hearts of the leaders, so they too can preach a new and improved religion. Of course, I'd still suggest it's much better to drop it all, completely. But, I also accept religion is here to stay. Take what you can and make the most of it.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
drumdude
God
Posts: 5196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Mars and the Problem of Pain

Post by drumdude »

JohnW wrote:
Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:15 am
drumdude wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:07 am
I think an even closer analogy would be how human parents raise their children. Mormon God in this case would be essentially no different from a human father. Human fathers can do their best to shield their children from harm when appropriate and use it to teach lessons when appropriate. They aren’t responsible for all the evil in the world and they can’t take it all away even if they wanted.

I think you are correct that this form of God is a decent enough answer to the problem of evil. But it has a lot of other implications that aren’t compatible with traditional Christian thought. So in my opinion you end up solving a couple problems while unfortunately at the same time creating a thousand more.
Yeah, agreed that the best analogy is human parents. That is pretty familiar with most people. Agreed on the opening a thousand more issues. We tend to think of God as the Mainstream Christian God during some times and the Lds God other times. We don't recognize that there are some fundamental inconsistencies between the two. I guess we can't have our cake and eat it? Ultimately, I prefer the Father God of Lds theology, but I am of course terribly biased.
There’s a lot to like in Mormon theology despite the contradictions and messiness. I am particularly fond of the suggestions that most people will find some sort of salvation no matter how much they fail in this life. I think that’s very much in keeping with the spirit of Christ as shown in the gospels.
Post Reply