God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

But even granting that framing, omnipotence and omniscience create a deeper problem. If God is truly both, why isn’t the message, or its execution, at least better, if not perfect? How would we expect the message or its execution to be any different if there were no God behind it at all? Pointing to the way things are as proof of divine intervention is just drawing targets around existing bullet holes.

I'm still not sure what the crooked/straight framing actually does (aside from its apologetic role to nuance evil for God with a neutral word). I think you ask two good questions in a row. To the first, the usual answer is life must be somewhat of a challenge. Let's uncritically go with that. Then, to the second question, if the most challenging world is the one that gets closest to no God, then why not cut out the middle man?

I've a the thought for a short sci-fi story that I haven't executed on (I'm sure somebody has done it already anyway) about effectively immortal billionaires who have become obsessed with one of these virtual reality games that provides a virtual world like the matrix. If they can survive harsher and harsher scenarios, their snobbery is justified -- if they can get themselves out from being a drug addict on the street and make it to riches in the game then (to them) so can anyone. In a quest to outdo each other, the challenge arises to go deep and cut the cord. No safety net if you die and no timer that expires to pull you back. Who is willing to risk it all and basically live a hard life on its own terms?

Kind of like that, I saw a documentary a long time about about this guy who harvests clams every morning from this muddy lake, does all the preparation work and delivery to restaurants he has for clients himself. It's a cold, wet, dirty job, and the guy seems gloomy and depressed. Not a life most of us would want. As it goes along, you learn that he made a lot of money on Wall Street (or something) and lives off of interest, and so this is just what he does because he was miserable without a challenge. It could only get better if there were real risk involved; like, what if the business had to succeed or he starved?

[Limnor]

I’m not a scientist but I enjoyed reading through these. I think the examples align more with Huck’s way of looking at the issue than MG’s. The biology indicates straight intent arrives through fallible agents—if carefully translated, that means the crookedness shows up in execution rather than in the command itself. MG tends to locate crookedness at the level of commands, where Huck leaves the command straight and puts the crookedness in human execution.

[memory from 60+ years ago + a couple of google searches] Apparent mathematical randomness is also useful in fields like game theory, and simulation - anywhere that you would like to have a variable that takes unpredictable values within bounds for a series of "turns". War games, financial market simulations, bio research, etc.

Are we just an iteration of a Monte Carlo simulation that some god-like entity is running?

This is why I love this board.

[Limnor]

Omniscience and omnipotence could guarantee perfect execution but you’d have to remove free willl/agency.

Even allowing for the need for God not to interfere, does not mean agency/free will is being preserved, all that is doing is preserving the free agency for some while allowing that same agency to be taken away by others, as is the case in murder or rape.

I think there is a great deal of strength in your objection—that allowing agency also allows potential for horrific harm. I don’t think the Bible denies that, but I also don’t see (outside the LDS explanation) where such harm is justified as required, or good, as part of a greater plan. I think rather than explaining suffering away, it treats it as something God refuses to fix by removing what it means to be a person.

[Gadianton]

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.

[Limnor]

Back to Satan's plan.

Yeah I wondered if I wasn’t accidentally supporting something I didn’t intend to support. But I think preserving agency explains why perfect execution isn’t guaranteed, even under omniscience.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that any given command deserves obedience. Agency can account for the risk of crookedness, but it doesn’t give license to trust any message as divine.

I haven’t finalized this thought as an example, and would appreciate another POV—what I mean by the above is I’ve sometimes wondered whether a moral inversion has occurred, reversing the “plans” as proposed. In practice—particularly regarding acceptance of polygamy as a command—It seems like the path that prioritized conscience and refusal to coerce ended up labeled Satanic, as opposed to the path that demanded obedience despite moral unease becoming Christ’s. If that’s the view of crooked and straight lines, moral discernment risks being redefined as coming from Lucifer.

[Rivendale]

Even allowing for the need for God not to interfere, does not mean agency/free will is being preserved, all that is doing is preserving the free agency for some while allowing that same agency to be taken away by others, as is the case in murder or rape.

I think there is a great deal of strength in your objection—that allowing agency also allows potential for horrific harm. I don’t think the Bible denies that, but I also don’t see (outside the LDS explanation) where such harm is justified as required, or good, as part of a greater plan. I think rather than explaining suffering away, it treats it as something God refuses to fix by removing what it means to be a person.

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.

[Philo Sofee]

I think there is a great deal of strength in your objection—that allowing agency also allows potential for horrific harm. I don’t think the Bible denies that, but I also don’t see (outside the LDS explanation) where such harm is justified as required, or good, as part of a greater plan. I think rather than explaining suffering away, it treats it as something God refuses to fix by removing what it means to be a person.

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.

[Limnor]

I think there is a great deal of strength in your objection—that allowing agency also allows potential for horrific harm. I don’t think the Bible denies that, but I also don’t see (outside the LDS explanation) where such harm is justified as required, or good, as part of a greater plan. I think rather than explaining suffering away, it treats it as something God refuses to fix by removing what it means to be a person.

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.

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.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

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.

[malkie]

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.

And vice versa.

If the intended victim can always choose to thwart the torture, brainwashing, sexual violence, severe trauma inflicted on children, etc., then the perpetrator is no longer free to exercise their will.