In responding to the problem of human suffering, Jacob Hansen and other LDS apologists need to account for doctrines that cast doubt on the necessity of earthly suffering to become like God

Jacob Hansen and Hayden Carroll recently appeared on Jubilee to debate Alex O'Connor. In both the debate and their debrief on Ward Radio, the discussion particularly focused on the problem of suffering. To address the earthly suffering of humans, Jacob and the others leaned heavily into the claim that it is a necessary condition for becoming like God. The analogy was that a parent needs to let their children enter an unjust world in order to help them grow up to be like the parent.

However, for consistency with LDS theology, Jacob and other LDS apologists need to account for at least two odd cases where suffering in an earthly life doesn't seem to have been a necessary step in becoming like God. I'll present them here, as well as a few thoughts on some potential responses.

(1) Infants who pass away without experiencing suffering (or at most a de minimis amount) are assured a path toward becoming like god.

• If LDS apologists are willing to stipulate that at least some infant has passed away without experiencing any suffering (perhaps due to developmental issues), then this entails that not all spirit children needed suffering in an earthly life to become like God.
• If the LDS apologist wants to claim that all infants have experienced at least some minor degree of suffering, and that is sufficient, then this still casts doubt on the amount of suffering necessary to become like God--apparently a de minimis amount is sufficient for some spirit children.
• Potential responses:
  • LDS apologists could point to the teaching that parents who lost children will be able to raise them in the millennium. The infants would then grow up and experience some amount of suffering before becoming gods.
    • However, considering the paradisiacal conditions of the millennium, I still think this may fall into a similar issue that a mere de minimis amount of suffering is sufficient for becoming like God, while many people go on to experience much more. Thus suffering on earth for most people still seems comparatively gratuitous.
  • They could argue that intelligences, before being formed into spirit children, were already naturally on different levels of preparation for godhood, and thus some may not require any earthly suffering at all to become gods.
    • This will be crucial as a response for the second objection below about Jehovah and the Holy Ghost. I flesh out the general response more below.
    • However, as applied to infants, this response suggests that God is somehow putting more prepared spirits into bodies that he knows in advance will die with only a de minimis amount of suffering. This may weaken the argument that God merely set up a system that included suffering and then just let it play out with unpredictable results (a similar argument was brought up by Hayden Carroll). It also morbidly reinforces that under LDS theology, a person performing an abortion or even infanticide could actually be performing the act of ultimate sacrifice, consigning themself to at least the telestial kingdom while assuring the fetus or infant godhood. That seems to be a twisted conclusion of this reasoning.

(2) Jehovah (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Ghost both achieved godhood before experiencing suffering in an earthly life.

• This seems to give two counter examples where we know godhood was achieved without suffering in an earthly life.
  • The apologist could respond that intelligences all started at different levels of preparation for godhood, and Jehovah and the Holy Ghost were both so advanced that they didn't need earthly suffering to become like God.
    • This raises more questions than it answers though. For example, this suggests that intelligence isn't a mere spectrum but actually can differ in type. What is the cutoff in intelligence where an intelligence needs at least some de minimis suffering on earth (not to mention an earthly body and saving ordinances) in order to become like God? What specifically about divine law binds God such that he can allow some intelligences to skip that step that is necessary for others? This seems dissatisfying to me.
  • The apologist could make an argument along the lines of the B theory of time that Jesus's future birth and suffering, and the Holy Ghost's future birth as well, both had effect before they happened of helping them achieve godhood.
    • This is a big metaphysical bullet to bite though--it seems to run counter to typical ideas of causation, and I myself have never run into this claim before within LDS theology.

Of course, this all focuses on the problem of suffering as applied to humans, whereas Alex O'Connor focused on suffering of animals (to avoid debating the usual theodicies). I'll share brief thoughts on that issue too:

• Jacob Hansen said on Ward Radio that he doesn't have a fleshed out response to the problem of animal suffering and for now appeals to mystery, but Luke Hanson and others threw out a justification based on animals choosing in the premortal life (like humans) to go through earthly suffering.
  • This seems like a massive stretch to me. It seems that animals are different in that while they can suffer, they lack rational capacity to consent to anything, similar to how children before the age of accountability and incapacitated adults aren't considered accountable, likely due to their insufficient ability to reason.
  • Luke could claim that animals were more intelligent in the premortal life than they are on earth. But this raises more questions. If animals could reason then, why not now? And if they can reason, why can they not also become gods ? Or can they become gods as well? If so, do they need ordinances? LDS theology makes no claim that animals have some higher goal of becoming like God, at most simply intended to "fulfill the measure of their creation." The idea that they consented to suffering simply seems like a non-starter.

Please critique these points! And I'd really appreciate hearing any other similar issues with their arguments or more responses LDS apologists could make.

Also u/Strong_Attorney_8646, I'd appreciate your thoughts, especially if you're planning on responding to Jacob and the others on this topic.

(edited: fixed formatting and added some omitted material)