The problem of evil is this: How could God allow evil? Mormonism has a unique answer in that it rejects the idea that God has unlimited power, so that God couldn’t prevent evil—it wasn’t God’s fault! But, how can we say God has limited power? Are there some evils God could have prevented even with the limited power available? Check out the video to find out more!
Why I'm Still Using 'LDS' and 'Mormonism'
Sometime last year (2018), I read that the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, president Russell Nelson, claimed to receive a revelation from God (this is not an unusual claim for the leader of this religion, as he is always considered to be a ‘prophet, seer, revelator’). He said that God had impressed on his mind that people should use the full name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ to reference his religion, though it could be shortened to ‘The Church,’ ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ or ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ Further, it is no longer acceptable for anyone to use the traditional abbreviated terms ‘LDS’ or ‘Mormonism.’ He then asked everyone—not just members of his religion—to do the same. After thinking about it for a good amount of time, I decided I am going to continue to use the traditional shortened terms, and I would like to respectfully explain why.
There are two reasons I can see that I should stop using ‘Mormon’ and ‘LDS.’ First, President Nelson, and the adherents of his faith along with him, believe that God told him I should. I am not a Mormon, I don’t believe President Nelson is a prophet, and I don’t believe God wants me to stop using these terms—but they believe it. Obviously I am not under any religious obligation when I’m not part of the religion—in fact it’s odd for a religion to have rules for unbelievers to follow insofar as they are unbelievers—but does respect for the LDS faith compel me to acquiesce? I don’t think that it does. You can’t respect a faith if you don’t take it seriously enough to disagree openly with it. Pretending to go along with it is just pandering, and I don’t think anyone wants that. I don’t believe God said this, so respect for the LDS faith compels me to say so.
The second reason is a little more difficult: LDS members themselves, including President Nelson, wish to be called by these names. Generally, I want to make people happy. It usually costs very little effort for me to use a different name, so why not do so? I think the answer to that differs for the four names.
First, let’s consider “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” This is a perfectly acceptable name for the faith and I have no problem with it in principle, but it’s clearly a practical problem. That name is absurdly long for use in conversation. It’s a name for a letterhead, not for everyday speech. It’s just too impractical to use this name when speaking of the LDS church. Mercifully, President Nelson says that God allows us to shorten the name after the first use, but even the first use is a little ridiculous.
The name ‘The Church’ is obviously a huge improvement in brevity, but what it lacks in length it makes up for in confusion. ‘The Church,’ when used as a proper noun, has historically referred to all Christians. It is true that the founders of Mormonism claimed to be the only true Christians and that all existing Christian denominations were an abomination, but the current stance of the LDS is that they are just another denomination of Christianity. For that reason, I don’t think President Nelson means to claim that the LDS has the only true Christians when he says we should use this name, but then the name’s use is confusing.
The name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ is much worse in that sense. This sounds like a furtive claim to be the true church of Jesus. Again, that’s not the official stance of the LDS anymore, but this moniker makes it sound like we’re turning back the clock. It may not have been the intention of President Nelson to do so, but words are powerful and asking to be called by a name like this has psychological ramifications that are impossible to ignore. Imagine, for example, if Baptists asked everyone to call them ‘The Church of Jesus Christ.’ How bombastic does that sound? For that reason, I think this name is wholly unacceptable.
The last name is ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ.’ The term ‘restored’ is meant to indicate that the Christian church almost immediately apostatized after the apostles died. We have no evidence that such a thing happened and very good evidence that the Christianity practiced for 2,000 years is relevantly the same as that practiced in the first few centuries. However, LDS theology holds that it isn’t. The official teaching is that we’ve spent the last 1,900 years practicing an abomination, and it was only with Joseph Smith that the church was “restored.” I am a Christian, so I obviously disagree, and calling the LDS ‘The Restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is just a smack in the face for me. So, I can’t use this name.
I can definitely see why the name ‘Mormon’ is odd, but not why it’s bad. The cornerstone of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon. It would sound weird for someone to call me a “Bible-ite,” but I can’t see why that would be bad. The name ‘LDS’ is just short for ‘Latter-Day Saints’ which is short for ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.’ That seems to me rather useful.
I’ll be honest—this post is not very well-written. These kinds of things are not really what I’m passionate about, so I really don’t want to spend too much time on them. However, it is important to me that any Mormons that have seen my videos or read anything I have written about their faith understand that I don’t use these terms flippantly. It’s just that the options President Nelson has provided are either impractical or theologically unacceptable and there was nothing wrong with the traditional terms. For that reason, I am going to keep using them.
NOTES
Logical Problem of Evil
1. If God exists, God could prevent evil
S1: omniscient & omnipotent
2. If God exists, God would prevent evil
S1: omnibenevolent
3. So, if God exists, evil doesn’t exist
4. Evil exists
5. So, God doesn’t exist
Supporting Argument for (1)
assume: 6. God exists
7. God is all-knowing
8. Evil is something to know how to prevent
∴9. God knows how to prevent evil
10. God is all-powerful
11. Evil is something to have the power to prevent
∴12. God has the power to prevent evil
13. An agent can prevent something if she knows how to do so and has the power to do so
∴14. If God exists, God could prevent evil
The Main Ideas
i. God is an exalted man who is not omnipotent
ii. So, (10) is false
iii. But God is still powerful enough to prevent some evils that he doesn't
iv. So, this response isn't enough