The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-14

GOOD AND EVIL EMBODIED.


The question of a personal devil i.
not by any means new. 1t has beer
revived many times. 1t is associated
with the question of 1.-The origin o.
evil" one that does not carry with i
very much profit, either to those who
) discuss it or those who pay attention
!; to the discussion. The Uni arians anC
Universalists are very much averse tc
the idea of an individual Satan, and
look upon evil as a principle, not a
thing personified. The Interior, in de-
batting this subject, says:
But we submit that if evil were to
Iexist in the universe, would not any
practical man say that it were better
to have it in the concrete, in some
form and embodiment where it could
be gotten at? Would it not be better
lif all the cholera microbes in the
Ganges were condensed into one Ben
gal tiger, no matter if the beast we're
quite as destructive as all the micro
scopic beasts put together? Danger is
half disarmed when it can. be located.
The weakness Of that argument, not
to use a stronger term, is in the no
ton that it conveys that all the evil
in the universe is embodied in one
person-the fiend known as Beelzebub
and by several other titles, just as all
the destructive microbes might be
supposed to be condensed" in a
beast that might be located" This
would naturally suggest that the mi
crobe infected beast, when located"
could be taken and destroyed and that
would be the end of microbes. And
this on a similar principle would bring
up the old infldel query, "Why doesn't
God kill the devil?"
The difficulty on one side is that
evil is not concentrated in one indi-
vidual, whether mortal or spirit, nor
can it be. And though we might have
evil exhibited 'in the concrete" in a
personal devil, it would not be all
there. and the destruction of such a
being would not destroy the principle.
Whether it would be better to have
evil in the concrete, so as to "be got
ten at" is a grave question, apart
from the possibility of such concentra-
ton.
On the other side the difficulty is
that evil in the abstract is well nigh
incomprehensible. That is to say.
that apart from any being or person
ality it is, if not inconceivable, some
thing that cannot be grasped SO as to
be understandable. That evil exists.
we know by its expression and exhibit
ton in or through individuals. With
out such embodiment, would it really
exist as a factor in human or any
other experience?
If that is essential to its manifesto
ton. why should it be unreasonable to
believe that there is a being who is
the very express embodiment and con-
centration of evil, exercising a malev-
olent influence and associating with
beings approximating to his fullness?
It seems just as rational to believe
that as to have faith in a personal
Deity. Indeed, one idea appears to be
the complement of the other.
Good and evil exist as natural oppo-
sites. They possibly always existed
They may be co-eternal Each NAV
be essential to the development of the
other. Certain it seems, one could not
be fully comprehended or appreciated
without the other. It is darkness that
gives value and beauty to the light
It is the experience of pain that makes |
pleasure SO sweet. All things are |
known by contrast with their onno-
sites, and therefore evil has its uses
and it is doubtful if it ought to he |
destroyed in the fashion suggested bv
the Interior.
Is it irrational or unphilosophical |
as we do that good and evil
are existing principles manifested |
through individual entities, that there
is Being who is the complete and
perfect embodiment of good and also
one who is the full and. concentrated
of evil?
If such Beings exist, would they not /
exercise their respective influences on
nlortals? And in the struggle between