Is Compatibilism Compatible with Mormonism? Pt. 1 (w/ Tarik D. LaCour)

Your answering and and and welcome by fireflies to the subs of the other brothers are just we have a special guest list of rhetorical core is a young C scholar. He saw working on a PhD in philosophy were happy to have them on, I became Facebook friends with him.

I think a few years ago and I was really interested to see him as he was here.

His wife are expecting the birth of their daughter Chloe. She started having and posting conversations with Chloe on Facebook which I found in lightning and then funny and I think it's a really, really cool thing that you did target because I think it'll be fun for her to look back on and target.

I have had a few conversations by Instant Messenger because the both pretty good baseball fans is a Yankees fan on the Dodgers fan would talk a little bit about that. I've enjoyed getting to know him and Scott of watching his academic career blossoming and forces. He's continued to study so we have month talk a little bit with us about the LDS view of free will is your free will, libertarianism versus compatible is him so he's a he's a philosophy student so should be a good conversation. Tarp welcome to outer brightness of a pleasure to be here at think you target are really excited. We are talking to you and I we hope that our listeners to know whether your LDS LDS that this conversation were trying to continue having more latter-day St. just on our program because we cited several of the past will be good to sleep really lightning somebody so I will start off by talking about your childhood streak ready to go up as a family life like free to share anything like was born in Washington DC but I was raised in Riverside, California, which is the southern part of California there's no riverine and I'm still not entirely sure why it's in Riverside so I'll figure that out when that's one of those great philosophical questions to be carefully will wise the site name toward it is grew up in a nondenominational Christian family but I was always philosophically interested in questions like how do we know God exists, what why Christianity rather than save Islam or Judaism or Hinduism with the nature of morality with the reasonably there's life after death tax questions I was asking when I was a very small kid fact I was asking some of them when I was in Sunday school #6 I got put in timeout because the teacher couldn't answer. I was asking these kinds of questions so I guess I was once a philosopher always a philosopher so there was that I was more or less kind I was going to church all throughout my youth, but I was probably somewhat of an agnostic sundaes limit towards atheism from probably age probably tended 15 or so I I never fully could get around the concept of the Trinity or the new material God so that was both a big thing for me.

And although I never knew of Christianity or hated like a waste of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do, but just something I thought deeply about, but I was still thinking about for years and years and then I I I don't know exactly when it happened but I kept thinking this is something that CS Lewis talks about. I'm not a fan of CS Lewis but it's kind of a an idea that I'm favorable to his thinking about Jesus, about who he is as you seek the son of God is keep summers crazier sees these of the things I thought about that for years and I finally just came to the conclusion that I thought he was the son of God, or what he claimed to be so became more or less a Christian after again after that my family didn't know how I felt about it. I discovered kept it to myself because they didn't, I don't think I would've understood but that I came back to that around age 15, 16 or so and then but I still didn't believe in the Trinity. I still did believe in the Christian concept of God, source kind of wondering where I could fit on this on the spectrum that I was reading through my set of encyclopedias and I discovered Mormonism I thought, well, that's interesting ideas about physically embodied God.

I thought we are very intriguing. So I study data that the church for 2 1/2 years from when I was 15, so I was fixing to have to learn as a team, then joined when I was 18 and then I went on a mission when I was 19 to Alabama and came back and that was I was 2000 and I joined the church in 2009 saw coming up my 12 year anniversary and then I went to a mission trip in 2010 came back in 2012 went to what was then LDS business College for two years then went to Utah Valley University University to my undergraduate philosophy and then I decided to do a PhD in philosophy, but my view philosophy as it needs to be connected to the natural sciences, so I wanted to go somewhere where I could also get a graduate degree and a set of some science.

I decided to neuroscience, so I came to Texas A&M Gazette allow you to do both and during that time also. Some of the mute suffered up seven years.

I met my wife there. We got married in 2017 as almost little earlier.

We had a daughter and 20/20 drank most of the pandemic, which was very interesting because there was a chance I wasn't going to be able to be in the room when my daughter was born. Luckily I was able to Christmas cards very early in the pandemic. We're still learning.

We we we basically knew nothing at that time my daughter was born, so did that and now I'm still practicing believing latter-day St., and working in philosophy and the philosophy of science, the philosophy of cognitive science and moral psychology and then my interest in neuroscience during perception and decision making. And yes, that's humble and as Paul mentioned, I'm a big sports fan. I made Yankees and a Lakers fan Dallas Cowboys fan and a Texas Longhorn. So they want, that's great, thank you for sharing. That is a lot. I wanted to comment about that. Like I could spend an hour just asking about your home Isa everyday but I wanted asked one more? Is that because I didn't know you meant to give you originally.

So, did you ever study under now Kelly Pollard of actin advised of the dentist because he has a father is a latter-day St. in the flask. Yes, I took three classes with her. Pretty did you see in a debate with James light is on temples between Kelly Potter and and James White. I don't I don't think I ignited by the local segment not actually if I call action wasn't on temples on the atonement yet and it's been a fierce testing but gets one in Wednesday if you two intersected while you're there so yes she was.

She's very influential in my philosophical ideas were very were very different, but she very much steered me in the analytic way of doing philosophy so actually, as I mentioned to have a good friend. She's a looker and she starting the philosophy of science and is a pretty tough field you not like trying to find experts that really focusing on that is as epic. Is that what you found to be the case as well, or psychological focus on what I like that the philosophy behind science or no scientific method. You know, getting more and select the foundations of what it means to perform science and intersects with religion. Second, what you do or is that not really related. I guess it's tangentially regulated. There are certainly debates in philosophy of science about how philosophy of science should proceed. Can philosophy of science doesn't need to be connected to scientific practice or can it be an arms length. I'm company of leaving needs to be connected to scientific practice so possibly there certainly.

And of course there are some and how people view philosophy of science within philosophy, philosophical community, of course, ranges. Some people think like W declined the philosophy of science is the only philosophy work doing. I tend to agree more with that, but more most people just think philosophy is scientist kind of a branch along with logic and metaphysics and other questions so so except it's it's a field unto itself but is Lots and lots of different ways of doing it awesome. Thank you for your insights. We should so what was that initially sparked your interest in studying philosophy.

I think I was sitting in noise standing in my mother's bedroom. I was about eight or nine and I was wondering how do I know that what I'm seeing is actually there in a not hallucinating and how and how do I know if the load side of my mind, this time about these kind of questions that Descartes asked at the beginning of the first meditations because I did nothing about Descartes at the time, and then I just kept asking those kinds of questions. Questions about free will which will talk about later personal identity. How we know what we know what's the best avenue to truth what is truth. Mean so those are all questions I was asking is that you and I actually didn't know philosophy. I knew what philosophy was. By the time I went on my mission. I didn't know it was its own department, but Stanton University people got paid for those things because I started thinking I wanted to do. Maybe biblical studies after I got out of my mission. My mission president is a New Testament scholar, so I thought about that for a while and then he mentioned to me you know the he would listen to me said I think what you should probably do it philosophy. That's more will your pet is and so that was that I came back and have a look back at what what are the philosophical questions that can drive your your studies in your research with the things that really get your mind turning and you want to try to contribute to the field blemish and free will help out if we are the kind of organisms that's the sciences describe how do we have choices. How we morally responsible.

So that's connects with moral psychology and with a philosophy of science.

Also, what is the sign what is site showing us about the world is the world very reductionistic corset of it broader than what we might conceive their what's the nature of consciousness nature of perception.

Those are the kind of questions I'm very interested in plan are all interconnected, as you could dynasty in others. Five branches of philosophy with epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and moral philosophy are ethics and most of my questions are more closely related to epistemology so you know what we know. Yes, I now make sense. So in terms of the second. Now about questions can talk about for him to start right into read right into it and you'll find very quickly upon iron philosophers so ill free to add them to down forest, don't. Don't be afraid to act like the like. You're talking down to us so pleasing. I explained as is, as you would like to explain why I teach like that.

As I mentioned, I teach engineering, ethics, and engineers have never taken philosophy classes before so I'm used to talking at a basic level, so keep it there okay great and we appreciated. Thank you very much for listening. However, on Jesus when he is really national born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in commonly referred to as the moment all of us have left that religion have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ as our podcast brightness six, John 19 because Jesus, the true light which gives light to everyone you found life young woman is brighter than we were told in the light, we have is not our own comes to us from without. This is to share our journeys of faith God has done in drawing us to his son and everything in between that you found this help you stick around.

The faith that the Mormonism conference is an annual conference that provides encouragement and insight, leaving Mormonism to explore new faith home and historic biblical Christianity, speakers, workshops, exhibitors and individual interactions receive helpful resources and new mothers on a similar journey this year featured guest anointing the folks from Adams Road ministry manager is a Christian nonprofit ministry dedicated to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through song and testimony as members of Mormons and brought into a saving relationship with Jesus, God, this year to advance the north of that held Alpine church in Langley, on September 10 and 11 in the South event held September 20 Centerpoint church in 19 you try to make the trip either too late to these events will be greatly blessed by them in times when you share that information with. So in terms of LDS philosophy. How does the LDS view of the eternal nature of intelligences. Intelligences tie into your view of our moral agency. So do you think do you think of this requires holding to libertarian free will or do you think compatible as a could be a possible view held by LDS okay let's say a backup little bit about what we talk about the nature of intelligences or intelligence so that's not of you as you kind of knowing will attain Christian theology. This kind of without the fundamental things of people agree on the basis of the son of David, the atonement and things like that. Of course, within Christianity, there are differences of opinion about say how the atonement works with Calvin having one view Aquinas having another Abelard having another work. So on the idea of intelligences. There are different views one would be that intelligence is what you would almost think about scientific law, so there's no uniform uniformity in nature that works according to laws that operate independent of God having created them.

That would be one view that someone with Brigham Young kind of thought and then there's another view which use intelligences is almost like people, but in embryo synopsis fully what we are now, but somehow conscious beings of some sort making the call, intelligences kind of proto-humans usually so depending on how you think about that that will influence how you think of freedom of the will. Blake Ostler takes more the latter view that intelligences are uncreated so that humans essentially like God, have the idea of the attribute of the state of self existence, not being created from anything else. Being somewhat necessary. My own view is I don't think that's the case, I think that matter and space and those types of things are necessary, but people are not met their more emergent as it works.

So on that you sense them. We come to be through those types of forces I don't see anything wrong with being a compatible list. That is, we should probably the listeners give little intrigued with it is so within the realm of free will. There are basically four views you can hold in their variations on each of them, but one would be hard determinism and determinism is the view that given the past. The future can only enfold one way so because of the Determinism is true, then you don't have free will. Everything that happened before necessitates what happens next. So it's like like a domino once the first domino goes are all going down and you can do about just as hard determinism sometimes is called determinism. On the other side is libertarianism which has nothing to do with the political philosophy multi-policy can be libertarian about free will, and it libertarian politically but it's not necessary and that's the view that causal determinism I just talked about is false, but we have free will.

So that's what I would say is the most commonly accepted view among Latter Day Saints, whether they are people in the pews are among scholars. Most are libertarians about free will. How how that all works. Everyone is a little different but the main point is that they think determinism is false and that we have free will. The other type of skeptic about free will is called a hard incompatible list and these people say it doesn't matter whether determinism is true or false. Either way, we likely will some people like Galen Strawser would be a person who is a hard incompatible list and then the most numerous group are called compatible list and they believe that determinism and free will can coexist at the same time.

Now some compatible list are deterministically accepted free will exists at and they also think determinism is true musical soft determinist as quick, comparatively hard determinist and then there are others who are of a little more noncommittal about whether determinism is true, but they still believe in free will and they will stay but whether it's true or false will still have free will. So those are those kind of the best the landscape of will. I may soft determinist because I believe determinism is true and we declare expanding that yet we kind of crap to this question because there are some Latter Day Saints that we interact with in discussion groups and they will tie the fact that Protestants are evangelicals believe in creation show execute levels of creation from nothing missing.

I don't know, and we made a program on that second check that out if Donna is nestled that's also true of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well.

Exactly as Canada set a Protestant right right yeah exactly. I mentioned that just because this particular discussion group is mostly just Protestants and patients are yet. Thank you for pointing out but so they would tie decided we believe that God created everything for nothing that the only choice for our free will is hard determinism, and so we try to explain compatible as an sometimes I disagree that's a possibility. So it's interesting that you admitted that he was last seen are soft compatible straight so soft determinist or just a compatible list sought to demonstrate and I think most Calvinists would probably be stop determinist category. Once you start getting into the hard determinist category that's more hyper- Calvinism all Lutherans.

I believe Luther was hard determinist.

I believe Nana sure about that anomaly for scholar and even even later it later scholars admit is a lot about get along like a lot of clouds yeah I I think it would be safe to say that most Christians of the Orthodox Catholic Protestant persuasion. Some version of free will certainly II would say it's probably true that in the Catholic tradition compatible list and is more common than Protestant traditions. I think thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, Ockham, oral soft determinist and in libertarians and II, certain among philosophers are more empty the project.

There are more than Protestant traditions. I've noticed I don't I don't know why that is, it may be because of the Catholic Church, which is very Aristotelian and Aristotle was compatible list. He influences Aquinas and Aquinas went great doctors of the church.

So it's not surprising away but then up but that even the Catholic Church.

You have Melina, who was a great libertarian so it's the point is, I would say little bit more to this. I think most about 95% of Christians are leaving some personal free will and for probably the same reason that a sense of moral responsibility is a prerequisite of being a Christian has to be some notion of admit require some you afraid of having free will now kind will come out it will differ great.

Thank you.

Lots of good points, and these are these are all very interesting questions and for the sake of our discussion I think were all coming at the question from the point of view of the asteroid and that there are also atheist philosophers who may hold to the various views of free will or determinism so can pilot out that my cat how would a materialist view these things where where the God question really isn't part of the discussion. While I am a materialist, so I I don't know that materialism always necessarily matters to that question, but as farce atheists are just like within Christianity there. Those who are there all along the spectrum, I would say most atheists go deep except some version free will. Galen Strawser is an atheist but that he's an incompatible list, but like Daniel Bennett is one of my favorite philosophers and is a well-known atheist. He's a compatible list. Roderick shows him to is is deceased now. He was a libertarian one. The more outspoken ones.

But Caesar else is out there, Robert Knox, Archangel Christian plastic so that there are a lot of different views out there, but I would say most are truthfully will have free will skepticism his credit is more the minority. There's, there's less there is less there are fewer skeptics than there are. I think there would be percentages the highest percentage will be compatible list. Then libertarians then skeptics would be after that skeptics would be very hard incompatible a start determinist so that they would, but to address your question. Some would view free will as well, as long as there's no gun to my head and I'm the one making the decision that I'm afraid that would be a soft determinist so people like Ajay Eric and JL Mackie were two prominent atheist philosophers that will be there view of free will. Matthew, you're an engineer so you know that there's multiple kind of degrees that machines can have the freedom or autonomy.

And that's how Daniel Bennett used free will is things that we have certain levels of freedom that apart that come together once work hold organisms sense of how he would do free will and there's other dues in between.

But I don't know but I don't think that the atheism doesn't imply that there's no free will. It would just be just must be well. If you have free will stop because God gave it to you.

That would be a waste of equipment except they would have to this, it's another way that I think I think I'm starting to get the distinction of glycan so as you were saying, like where where determinism what determinism is like once once the ball is set in motion and everything else that follows is a result of that initial kick of the ball or what have you, Ryan, and so I think some pleas for my reading. Some people some philosophers who are atheist and and and materialist tend to view and that determinism is as I guess rooted in our bodily nature. Right. So something that happens to you as a child, then certain things are going to happen are going to follow follow from that because of your your makeup by what will happen to you as a child.

So how does that play into your studies as a neuroscientist flow. The neuroscience of free will is a very interesting field. I would say that neuroscience I should wishing available that historically, so most determinist let's say in the 18th and 19th century were taking their view of determinism due to physics with Newtonian physics being deterministic so they accepted that after they got there determinism from now quantum mechanics can be either in deterministic or deterministic and were not sure which one.

So that still an open question sciences like neuroscience and chemistry do tend to be deterministic, although there are some neuroscientists who are libertarians but they are very few and far between. So, yes, but you're right there is we do when you see kind of a causal antecedent and were able to and this is a big thing in Beijing.

Neural economics where we can kind of understand. If we understand like preseason proceeds, a person's decision. We can with very high accuracy. Predict what they're going to do which tends to make sense of determinism is true of eukaryotic liberty.

If there was no real connection between what happened in the past and what happens next. It was and it would seem odd that you be able to predict that so accurately so the question becomes, okay, so what's with the more plausible explanation that were just getting really really lucky with there's a causal connection to this and I would say it's the latter rather than the former, and it seems like science in general is reliant upon this idea that there is a chain of events there. There is a cause-and-effect right if you disconnect any kind of cause and effect really good is a cited method or are kitschy.

Well, I don't need to say that libertarians reject cause-and-effect ties you they would they would see they would see their free will is being somewhat unconnected from the types of things that science studies so a lot of libertarians such as Richard Swinburne, who is one of the great Rotarians today, Carol's mind. He's a substance dualist so he thinks there's a soul. And then there's the material world and the soul is free and has libertarian free will. Where determinism roles within the physical world.

So Swinburne would say was perfectly fine for science to talk about those types of things but when it comes to persons persons are different there not just material beings, so that would be his way of getting around it are other people who are libertarians but they are but they are materialist and think you're Peter been and why couldn't they will say well yes it but free will is just a mystery. We just can't understand it like we know we have it whenever explained.

It's not unlike what is talked about it what's known as kind of a pessimism about the heart problem of consciousness. The stairwell consciousness exists will never explain it. These are called them not met or not and evolutionist solution is something different.

But there that day.

Just there to skeptical will ever solve the problem.

That's similar to that some people's view of free will. We know we haven't why we have it, how it works will we won't know I did a lot as Christians to test the appeal to mystery some things are just experienced that with occult mysterious. So a person in the heart problem of consciousness is a consciousness exists can explain it. That's similar to some people about free will, we have it will never explain why, but will keep trying to submit only shut down debate those state. We probably won't get an answer.

It's probably too hard for us to figure out make sense. So I went quiet which is fine. I mean there are so many questions in science and cleanup. I think lots of working scientists, even the ones were very confident science. I am too will admit that there's just a lot were never going fully understand we just don't have the ingenuity the money the time to answer all the questions I just mean that science can't answer them in principle is just that were limited creatures, so the gist of your lot, but less on Left unanswered and free will.

Maybe one of the mysteries that members conquered, so I followed little bit on your mattress, this question we read, we often interact with Latter Day Saints to pulsate enough if if God creates X Nilo than God is responsible for all of the evil that occurs in the world and and that humans carry out and and they feel the take the view that because Joseph Smith taught that that there's no such thing as a material matter, and intelligences status that a spirit essence right and spiritus matters more refined, so the take of you that because humans have a acidity is that you have alluded to.

Blake also taken a position but you don't, so the Savior.

Humans have a Sadie and therefore no guy cannot be held responsible for any evil that we we commit. What is your what is your view of essence you can reject the idea that humans have a Sadie okay make sure I understand the question. You started off by saying that many people say Latter Day Saints within your chat group has said because God creates X. Nilo therefore got responsible for the evil that humans do that.

Correct correct okay well first I would say I don't think that's true, you God is not, does not responsible for God would only be responsible for the evil that humans do it, if God fully controls what humans do. I don't think that follows from Mexico.

You can create something that has agency and connect for itself. So God wouldn't be responsible for that. I don't think that follows from X Nilo creation and was the second trip question you asked, with what you said that you don't accept, and the idea that humans have a Sadie given us, generally accepted LDS view, even if they wouldn't use the word to Sadie Tillich what are your thoughts on the house that had is your your thinking on that fit within your your broader LDS framework it just as I don't think it really don't think it really affects a whole lot except that you're just a contingent being like everything else I guess. I don't think it unattractive and on the spot.

Still thinking no I don't I don't I don't think anything that this would be of you.

I guess I share with both of you as you believe it man about mankind the government men and women, non-binary as well that they are contingent being discussed correct. Yes. So I would agree with that. I would just save it.is also a contingent being sensed that so I guess I would say that there onto the daunting necessary beings. There's just a lot of contingent beings that for some reason so recent which is all ultimately my view of the universe is that it just is just there.

That's all does have an explanation of why so it sounds like from understand you correctly and that you would take the bike the infinite regression of God's model with an obvious framework for ES Legos back to their multiple views on that to monkey was known as the King Follett sermon were Joseph Smith talks about God was once a man, as we are now.

There are different ways of taking that Blake also takes the view that God has always been God but in order to gain certain understanding of what it means to be human.

He took upon himself the body much the way Jesus Christ as our did and then pinpoint the most experienced of them is now essentially embodied so that so that would be why the father has a body dishonest body, and the Holy Ghost as of yet. Or you can take the view of eternal regression, which is based on the net regression made.

That's the wrong but if infinite regress you which is the just an infinite cycle of men becoming God's been kind of having no beginning and no end. So that would also kind of require, I think this would that you make sense if you think that the past, present and future are all equally real like to be three times as so it would it would be a it is very different in that sense, so yeah so I take the infinite regress. The so do you.

In general, that you think that and the Odyssey is more easily resolved on on LDS view that that's kind of where you are Latter Day Saints interlocutors 10 Big Ten detailers that they think the Odyssey is more more readily solvable on LDS view because of the coeternal nature of five intelligences with God by theodicy. I take it you mean why does God allow evil and suffering that happened with some of the reason I want to clear that up as people often use the word theodicy referred both the problem of evil and why God allows it.

And those are two separate questions focus wanted to make that distinction. I would say that there are Latter Day Saints views beckon that are introspective interesting at that account for interesting theodicy, but it would still be it. It will still be a problem regardless of whether you are a Latter Day Saints you're a Christian as a latter-day saint or a not Arnon Latter Day Saints Christian because you always make it at some level I think Blake Ostler is right on in his new book at the beginning when he says we really don't know why God allows these types of things to happen.

So it will always be somewhat of a mystery annual profit and theodicy cited to part of the answer, such as the free will defense of your libertarian God can't create free creatures and then ensure that they do what he wants all the time because part of the being free means I can do.

Otherwise I can do what I want, which means I can tell God I don't want to do what you're asking. I want to cause harm and suffering, God has to give me that ability then certain people say, well, as it is.

It really is all the pain and suffering will enforce the trade-off of your freedom. Michael Roos is very skeptical that that's a very prominent defense, though that's not distinct distinctly a theodicy because it's not saying if this kind of showing the problem is this possible problem. As you might think this is Alvin planet. As you whose reforms Matthew like you some shots of reformers and that so were you asking my own view theodicy was the just, just, is it easier to resolve an Latter Day Saints view versus on any non-Latter Day Saints Christian latter not forgotten Torres that she just wanted to know what he thought of my Bible.

I don't think that the problem of evil is any more easily solved by Latter Day Saints that it is by other types of Christians. It will it it seems it will be a problem for anyone unless they just say that there's no such thing as evil things just happen.

And then there is no problem. But that's not what most Christians are going to go south so you said that I said earlier that. Why does God allow evil is the separate question from where did evil come from his IRA. The problem of evil is taken to show that if evil exists in God is not exist within various. The other question okay even if God exists. If God is good, why does he allow these things to happen. There must be some reason why God allows it to happen. Some people say well yes there is a reason we don't know, but a person is giving a theodicy essay. This is why God allows evil happened. So they're taking a stronger view than state plan a goat does when he says well it's not contradictory to say that evil God exists in a good God exists now why God allows evil to happen is another question.

I don't know what the answer is, but the problem of evil doesn't refute the God exists so that's the difference in courses different versions of the problem with people. There's a logical version. It says there's a logical contradiction and having a good God and and evil in the world. So evil exists then God doesn't exist. Seven people say it's more obvious that evil exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist. If they take a logical version to be the case now. Alvin plans against free will defense gave a pretty big body blow to be logical version of the problem of evil so most people don't use that anymore.

There have been some renewed arguments that are logical arguments against the problem of evil people like Jay Howard Sobel in his book of logic and fearsome he gives a new version of that argument that Mackey wants to advance back in the 1970s and 80s, but most people would reject it now with more common now is it's called the evidential list for the crop of the public probabilistic version of the problem of evil.

It says there's no logical contradiction in God existing and evil existing but it's highly unlikely that a good God exists. Given that evil exists and in their different ways of going about that. Some people give was told by John Hick would give without the soul, building theodicy, which is in order to become the person God wants you to be you have to go through this tremendous amount of suffering and then people will object to that by saying things like, well, maybe that makes sense for adults to live a long time but what about all the kids who die in infancy, they don't really learn anything from it because they all live long enough to learn, so their different kind of views on that mother distinct issues. Nice wanted to make sure the listeners understand that and that's great thank you Nana and I was gonna bring up the fact that myself and my shoes when I was a latter-day St. I would've kind of given the same the same idea that you just stated that the idea that suffering exists or evil exists because as part of the on the plan of redemption eternal progression and I would probably have appeal to the bookmark which says I must use the oppositional things have you heard that kind of defense from the Latter Day Saints or how would you address that. That's Lehi's version of Canada is not giving either a theodicy. He's getting more of an explanation of why the atonement is necessaries talking about the solvent evil per se. I would point out there yet.

I fight for that few times I don't think it's true that evil has to exist for good to exist. It seems that one can exist without the other, for example, there is, it seems that God by himself and perfectly good can exist with no evil, so that you can be separate. I don't think one is dependent on the other and of course Stephen Latter Day Saints believe in heaven there will only be good and don't be no evil so they don't all have to exist at the same time radically. I think Lehi is trying to give a is trying to give a story to son and explain some very tough things but he's not doing technical philosophy studies iodide, which I think there's some things that are not correct.

Although I agree with the overall article he sent okay yeah great the for addressing at this Canada one text on your design elements. That's one that I commonly referred to as guest.

Why did evil exists now That we thank you for tuning into this episode of the outer brightness podcast.

We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the added brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page. We would appreciate it if you give the page a lightning. We also have an outer brightness get on Facebook can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future etc. you can also send us an email outer brightness Gmail.com Hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to outer brightness wherever you listen to podcasts if you benefiting from a content please write a review to help us spread the word subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit that notification will use it for outer brightness is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and Adams Road. You can learn more about Adams Road.

By visiting their ministry. Page at Adams Road. Ministry.com is diseased in my swimming and the cheeses and now the accident in Jesus is alive and that a G and a and a and a and a naming a man in the and is and any a a and a and a a is a man being saying the