Talk:Moses 2:1-3:3

Verse 2: Causing darkness

I should think that causing darkness to come upon the face of the Earth would be a natural first step as the chapter doesn't say that the Lord created light after he created darkness, but that he said, "let there be light." I should think it rather less likely that the original state of things was without light. (Especially near Kolob.) It would seem then that a possible implication was that God did something to block out the light that already existed or removed the planet that was in the vicinity of light away from that light. (Perhaps then an initial state of darkness was needed as part of the creation? and perhaps he used a method similar to 3 Ne 8:20-22) -- Seanmcox 04:41, 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Sean, thanks for the thoughts, esp. the mention of 3 Ne 8. This makes me think more in terms of darkness gathering to resist God's creation/organizing of the world. That is, like with Joseph Smith's first vision where there he experienced darkness just before the vision. In this sense, there's sort of a similarity with the way that God hardened Pharoah's heart in Exodus—perhaps it would be more accurate to think of Pharoah "exercising his agency" in response to God/Moses, but since Pharoah hardened his heart in direct response to God's actions, it is also accurate to say that God caused Pharoah's heart to harden (somewhere on this site there's some discussion of the JST issue...). Of course it could just be that God directly caused the darkenss to come also, I'm not sure that poses a real problem, we just tend to associate God with light and evil with darkness, so it seems a little surprising is all (as per my comment below). Anyway, I've wondered a fair bit about this verse and would appreciate any more thoughts on it.... --RobertC 16:30, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

I think I found something of a discussion of the JST issue you mentioned here. It's interesting you should mention God causing the Pharaoh's heart to be hardened. We had a discussion about an issue much like this last week in an institute class I teach. I'm teaching Pearl of Great Price right now, so I try to focus most of my time looking at the texts in that book. To some extent I take issue with a question that tends to be a bit confusing and implies an aprehended paradox. I expect that the writer was confused by the text, and that's a good reason to write (or pose) the question. (As policy states, and as I have done in at least one place.) Perhaps with a bit of rewording, it could be made into a good thought question that tends more to instill confidence that an answer exists.

In any case, we had a discussion regarding Moses 1, especially verse 23 and I posed the question "Why would Satan want to remove this text from the Bible?" (Implicitly, why did he? Though clearly he didn't do it personally, it would seem clear that he had his hand in the matter.) If I recall correctly, one particularly astute member of the class was able to cite 2 Ne 28:22 which I had particularly in mind and led to a broader point I was trying to make regarding the JST (the nature of which, of course, has been heavily discussed in the class) and the need for it. The main idea was that per 2 Ne 28:22 Satan had a strong interest in removing himself from the Bible and in the oldest texts, he is, in fact, missing. The best indication we have of an evil entity is the serpent in the account of the Fall we find in today's Genesis. Anciently, this would have led to a natural confusion regarding the nature of evil and in modern times it has paid off doubly as theologians and higher critics analyzing the text have, in many instance determined that the ancient knew of no such entity as the Devil. (Clearly the book of Moses shows that this conclusion is wrong.) This conclusion that the ancients knew of no such entity as the Devil leads to a natural formulation of theories as to why he was "invented." The answer I have heard to this question is that people needed a way to reconcile the existence of evil with the just God they believed in. Some thologians and others nowadays conclude that since the Devil was, according to this analysis, merely an invention to reconcile this difficulty, then he need not actually exist, and so they don't believe that he does.

However, thanks to the JST and the Book of Mormon, we have some insight into how and why this situation might have come about.

The case of Ex 7:3 is similar, though perhaps as some have suggested, merely the result of idiom. Then again, perhaps not. I'll move over to that forum to make my comments however.

I can see how the question of whether or not the use of darkness might have some significance under the standard symbolic scheme of darkness signifying evil. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything to contribute to that line of thought. Perhaps it can be worded as a nice question. (I'll try my hand at it as I have a mind to do some rewording of the questions anyhow.)

--Seanmcox 18:15, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief word here, since most of my response here has been posted at Ex 7:3's discussion page. Sean, does Moses 1:23 imply that Satan had a hand in getting rid of the content of the Book of Moses? Well, he certainly had a hand, but did he have a hand in any direct sense whatsoever? I don't think so. I think that verse can be read--ought to be read--as saying that God took the text away, because people became wicked (and so Satan had a hand, but rather indirectly, just in making the world a more wicked place). I assume that the Book of Moses is not an "original" text of Genesis in any way, but an alternate one. Perhaps Moses wrote two books, or perhaps he left the Book of Moses with someone who was going to seal it up with instructions to write the Book of Genesis out of it, with particular things left out that are contained in the Book of Moses. Etc., etc. In short, it may be that we have two scriptural texts that are parallel, and that Satan had nothing to do with the disappearance of the Book of Moses. This reading is, as far as I can tell, entirely justified. Moreover, I think it helps to make good sense of the subsequent discussions in, especially, chapters 5-8, where the patriarchal order (the "third" order of the priesthood) is discussed at length. Anyway, just an iconoclastic thought. --Joe Spencer 23:05, 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Verse 2: Does God cause evil?

If God caused darkness, does this suggest that God is a cause of evil? Not necessarily of course, but I think it's a natural question, inasmuch as darkness is not good (as discussed in the exegesis for Gen 1:2). It seems typical in LDS culture to think of God allowing evil but not causing it. Where does this view come from? Is there scriptural backing? Statements from modern prophets?

Inasmuch as Satan is God's creation, and Satan is the cause of much evil in the world, God's relation to evil seems to be more than just allowing evil.

Also, Elder Maxwell taught (BYU fireside, September 1st, 1974, "But for a Small Moment") that God "will customize the challenges he gives us", suggesting that God causes challenges in our lives. If God causes such challenges, it does not seem too large a step futher to say that God causes evil.

--RobertC 15:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I think this talk by Elder Maxwell given on February 3, 1995 provides some interesting insights with regard to your questions.(“The Richness of the Restoration,” Ensign, Mar. 1998, 8) MJ 20:10, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very interesting talk. I think his quote near the end from Anthony Flew is particularly interesting and relevant:

“We cannot say that [God] would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say that he would help if he only knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for the wickedness of others: God creates those others. Indeed an omnipotent, omniscient God [who creates all things absolutely—i.e., out of nothing] must be an accessory before (and during) the fact to every human misdeed; as well as being responsible for every non-moral defect in the universe.” (Antony Flew, “Theology and Falsification,” in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Antony Flew and Alasdair Macintyre (1955), 107.)

--RobertC 07:34, 19 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I think you have perhaps misread the context of the quote and stopped short of Elder Maxwell's point. The quote above is presented as the commentators view (unaided by the restoration) of human suffering combined with an "out of nothing" creation which Elder Maxwell is arguing against. Elder Maxwell had just finished saying that God did not create man ex nihilo.

The first line of the next paragraph is clearly in contrast to the conclusion of Flew, it states "Of course, God is not “responsible” for our human misdeeds!" and Elder Maxwell goes on to explain why God is not responsible for our misdeeds. I hope I have not misunderstood your point or that of the quote, but I think there is a large difference in the conclusion that could be drawn. MJ 14:23, 19 Jan 2006 (UTC)

MJ, thank you for catching my gross misrepresentation. I knew this wasn't quite what Maxwell believed, but I didn't have time to read or think carefully about his point right then. You're definitely right, Maxwell's point seems to be that if man was created ex nihilo then we run into this problematic (absurd?) conclusion that God is responsible for evil. But since the restoration tells us God organized the world instead of creating the world ex nihilo, we do not run into this problem. He makes a couple other interesting points which I want to think more carefully about. I'll post my thoughts (or a link to them) as I have time here. --RobertC 19 Jan 2006 (or so)