Volume 33, No. 4

On a spring day in 1955, a group of distinguished gentlemen gathered at a White House dinner at the request of President Dwight Eisenhower. The guests included founding partners of three law firms, the President of the Teamsters’ Union, three Army Generals, a Cabinet Secretary, the publisher of the Boston Globe, the Vice President of ABC, the Chairman of CBS, the President of MIT, four CEO’s and one clergyman—David O. McKay, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I hope I’m not extending the metaphor too far, but it seems apparent the field is less white and more colorful as the church moves into the twenty first century. Most church members are aware (although some along the Wasatch Front have a hard time visualizing it) that rapid growth rates in Latin America, Africa, and the Philippines are essentially among people of color. However, it is my contention that future growth of the church even in the bastions of Nordic, Teutonic, British, and Celtic Europe—a region which supplied membership and leadership during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—will increasingly be among people of color not native to the European continent. 

Robert Nisbet defines the idea of progress as the notion that mankind has advanced in the past from barbarism and ignorance, is now advancing, and will continue to advance through the foreseeable future. It is arguably the central motivating philosophy that has led men and women throughout history to forge ahead to a brighter future. 

According to traditional theism, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God were omnibenevolent, he would want to eliminate evil. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to eliminate evil. So why should there be any evil? This problem is, by far, the most discussed subject in the philosophy of religion. In this paper, I argue that rejecting the traditional notion of God is the best way to deal with this problem.