God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Evil is not only allowed it is required. It is logical to assume that there could be a world where everyone made the correct choices without coercion. (The Celestial kingdom as an example) Instead we are allowed to be exposed to elements or people that can remove our free will for no reason or to allow someone else there ability to practice freewill.

If we allow that “We are allowed to be exposed to elements or people that can remove our free will.”

Then the problem is that if Person A’s free will annihilates Person B’s free will, then free will is no longer the highest good in that moment.
Take for instance, torture, brainwashing, sexual violence, severe trauma inflicted on children, etc. These cases show the victim is not choosing, but they are being acted upon. That means their moral agency is reduced, not exercised. So we inevitably have to ask why is one person’s opportunity to choose evil more valuable than another person’s opportunity to choose anything at all? If free will is sacred, this is not a small problem, it’s the main one.

I see a relationship between what you’ve said here and the story of Pharaoh’s hardening. However it’s explained results in real harm to others who have no meaningful choice in the matter—Israelites, Egyptians, firstborn children.

How does LDS theology parse this?

[Limnor]

I understand that as the LDS framing, where opposition is required for agency and progression, but I’d be curious to better understand the LDS explanation for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart—the biblical story doesn’t explain the hardening of his heart in terms of preserving agency or enabling others’ free will, in fact it seems to restrict that agency.

Joseph Smith took the out that the Bible had been mistranslated there, and simply retranslated it. Technically speaking, there is no way to find that out, because we simply don't have any of the original manuscripts..... it's an interesting temporary solution as it is at this point.

Ah I see. Convenient.

[Philo Sofee]

agency also doesn't cover all evil. human agency didn't cause an earthquake under the ocean that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people in tidal waves.

True, but, it does not defeat free will explanations. But what it does prove is that agency alone is not enough.

[Philo Sofee]

If we allow that “We are allowed to be exposed to elements or people that can remove our free will.”

Then the problem is that if Person A’s free will annihilates Person B’s free will, then free will is no longer the highest good in that moment.
Take for instance, torture, brainwashing, sexual violence, severe trauma inflicted on children, etc. These cases show the victim is not choosing, but they are being acted upon. That means their moral agency is reduced, not exercised. So we inevitably have to ask why is one person’s opportunity to choose evil more valuable than another person’s opportunity to choose anything at all? If free will is sacred, this is not a small problem, it’s the main one.

I see a relationship between what you’ve said here and the story of Pharaoh’s hardening. However it’s explained results in real harm to others who have no meaningful choice in the matter—Israelites, Egyptians, firstborn children.

How does LDS theology parse this?

We could ask MG........

[Philo Sofee]

Joseph Smith took the out that the Bible had been mistranslated there, and simply retranslated it. Technically speaking, there is no way to find that out, because we simply don't have any of the original manuscripts..... it's an interesting temporary solution as it is at this point.

Ah I see. Convenient.

Yep........ I mean, there is precious little else to argue about that approach, even though LDS may be uncomfortable with it. All you have to do is ask if the Jehovah's Witnesses can do that to the Bible, are you comfortable with their translations and interpretations in order to justify their own theology? I didn't think so........

[Limnor]

Threading the needle here while still thinking through the straight and crooked game.

I think we’ve established that God is not bound by the same rules as humans, as per the Abrahamic sacrifice as a “one time” event. I think the same could be said of the sacrifice of His own son, and perhaps even extended to the story of Job. Maybe we could term this “divine prerogative.”

But God also seems to act in a way that preserves agency, personal responsibility, and consequences—the moral structure remains, though maybe not as a bright red line that LDS theology ascribes to agency. Divine prerogative also could be seen as governing judgment and history through God raising up nations to punish Israel in the Old Testament. This alone, even apart from the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, could be seen as violating the hard rule of “thou shalt not abuse agency.”

But I’m not convinced that applies as far as Calvinism seems to go—I’m not sure how far coercion of individuals goes and I’m uncomfortable with Calvinist answers.

The question I’m wrestling with is: if Paul says that God “hardens whom he will,” is it a fair assessment to understand that as God exercising sovereignty over when restraint ceases rather than overriding a person’s will? Can divine prerogative through history exist without violating agency—so that God is not subject to the same rules as humans, yet also does not interact with creation through crooked means?

[Philo Sofee]

Threading the needle here while still thinking through the straight and crooked game.

I think we’ve established that God is not bound by the same rules as humans, as per the Abrahamic sacrifice as a “one time” event. I think the same could be said of the sacrifice of His own son, and perhaps even extended to the story of Job. Maybe we could term this “divine prerogative.”

But God also seems to act in a way that preserves agency, personal responsibility, and consequences—the moral structure remains, though maybe not as a bright red line that LDS theology ascribes to agency. Divine prerogative also could be seen as governing judgment and history through God raising up nations to punish Israel in the Old Testament. This alone, even apart from the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, could be seen as violating the hard rule of “thou shalt not abuse agency.”

But I’m not convinced that applies as far as Calvinism seems to go—I’m not sure how far coercion of individuals goes and I’m uncomfortable with Calvinist answers.

The question I’m wrestling with is: if Paul says that God “hardens whom he will,” is it a fair assessment to understand that as God exercising sovereignty over when restraint ceases rather than overriding a person’s will? Can divine prerogative through history exist without violating agency—so that God is not subject to the same rules as humans, yet also does not interact with creation through crooked means?

On your question the moral worry you’re sensing is real. If God uses evil by causing it, then God becomes morally compromised.
Paul avoids this by insisting that God never needs to author evil and that evil already exists in human refusal.This makes God’s role as judicial, not manipulative. So, God does not lie, coerce, or deceive, but instead allows chosen paths to occur. Judgment in this regard is letting reality become honest. This is what keeps God asymmetrically sovereign, or rather, not bound by human limits, yet never acting through moral corruption.

There are reasons why Paul leans on mystery here. Notice what Paul doesn’t do in Romans 9. He does not explain how hardening works psychologically. We also don't read where he offers a mechanical model either. He actually refuses to reduce divine action to human categories and instead of this short cut, he draws a boundary.
God is not accountable to human expectations of fairness, but God is also not unjust. That tension is intentional giving us to understand that Paul is protecting transcendence without tyranny. Or to put it differently, Paul’s claim that God “hardens” does not require God to override human will. This can be understood to mean that God does not force people to do evil. Instead, God decides when to stop holding them back. When that restraint ends, people are allowed to follow the path they have already chosen, and the results of those choices play out in history. In this way, God’s plan can move forward without God causing evil or taking away anyone’s ability to choose. It’s like a teacher who keeps warning a student and stepping in to help. Eventually, the teacher stops intervening, not to make the student fail, but to let the student experience the result of their own decisions.

[MG 2.0]

agency also doesn't cover all evil. human agency didn't cause an earthquake under the ocean that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people in tidal waves.

Are you suggesting getting rid of techtonic plates?

Good discussion all! Just checking in again. My wife and I returned from Idaho this evening after attending mother-in-law's funeral. December was an interesting month for us with my wife's injuries from the auto accident in addition to all that led up to the passing of a sweet Christlike woman.

When I saw this thread was still chugging along with some excellent contributions it made me happy. I'm glad that good discussion CAN take place when people put their minds to it without rancor and wagging fingers.

The discussion rather than going 'shallow' or superficial has truly delved into some interesting ideas. I'm glad that agency is being brought into it.

Agency=Crookedness.
Learning/repentance=Progression...and eventual straight lines...going many different directions depending on trajectory.

Fractal in nature

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Let me throw something else into the mix:

Fractal geometry offers a useful metaphor in this discussion as we consider that the “crooked,” jagged details of a fractal can embody a hidden, coherent pattern, much like a providential order running through the twists and failures of a human life.

Crooked lines becoming straight but from our point of view 'randomized' and somewhat incoherent and even incomprehensible...running many different directions at sometimes odd angles...but forming fractal patterns that may show, from the outside looking in (outside observer), a coherent pattern that actually makes sense from the view of the observer (God and those that are privy to being able to see the end from the beginning).

I would argue that our view within our limited dimension of reality doesn't do justice to patterns of complicated fractal designs.

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

agency also doesn't cover all evil. human agency didn't cause an earthquake under the ocean that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people in tidal waves.

Philosophers distinquish between "natural evil" and "moral evil"

Just FYI.