Latter-day Saint understanding of James 1:13-15, God's omnibenevolence and God's free will?

In my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* , I presented the following contradiction: > **Premises** > - P1: God is omnibenevolent > - P2: God is omnibenevolent => God is *not* capable of moral evil > - P3: God has free will > - P4: God has free will => God is capable of moral evil > > **Deductions** > - D1: God is *not* capable of moral evil (from P1 & P2) > - D2: God is capable of moral evil (from P3 & P4) > - Contradiction between D1 & D2 (=> The "missing link" here is *character.* **God has free will, and is fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous ways**. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in benevolent and righteous ways as well. Comment: this answer explicitly affirms premises 3 and 4, and implicitly affirms premise 1 and rejects premise 2. [Answer 2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95949/61679) : > The OP presents a logically valid argument to show a contradiction > between God having free will and God being omnibenevolent. **However,** > **the argument is not sound because premise 2 is false.** > > **Premise 2 (God is omnibenevolent => God is not capable of moral evil)** > **is an untenable definition of omnibenevolent**--it in fact begs the very > question the argument is trying to evaluate. **If God expressed love,** > **provided aid, and sustained life simply because He couldn't *not* do** > **those things, He would be no more benevolent than oxygen, which also** > **sustains life...but is not *benevolent***. > > Oxford languages defines benevolent as "well-meaning and kindly". > Something which sustains life because it is compelled to do so by the > laws of nature may be useful, but it fails to demonstrate any evidence > of benevolence. For a more down-to-earth example, we might consider > how we would feel if someone did a great service for us (oh, how > benevolent!), only to learn that they were coerced into doing so (it > no longer appears benevolent at all). Neither oxygen nor someone > forced into a service project are well-meaning & kindly. It is a > category error to assume Christians use "benevolent" to describe a God > who is loving, merciful etc. because He is compelled to do so. > > God is benevolent *because* He has free will and chooses to do things > that are well-meaning and kindly. Comment: this answer explicitly concedes premises 1 and 3, explicitly rejects premise 2 and is silent about premise 4, although premise 4 is implicitly accepted since it follows logically from accepting P1, ~P2 and P3. In summary, both answers, written by Latter-day Saints, seem to concede all premises except P2, and therefore reject that God is *not* capable of moral evil, which is equivalent to conceding that God *is* capable of moral evil. In short: they believe that God *is* capable of moral evil. And this brings us to James 1:13-15: | James 1:13-15 KJV | | - | | 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: **for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man**: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. | If, according to James, God cannot be tempted by evil, that explicitly contradicts the belief that God *is* capable of moral evil. See this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95979/61679) for a more elaborate presentation of this objection. How do Latter-day Saints account for James 1:13-15, and how do they reconcile this passage with their understanding of God's omnibenevolence and God's free will? --- **Appendix - Deriving P4 from P1, ~P2, P3** I'm adding this as requested in the comments. Let: - O = God is omnibenevolent - E = God is capable of moral evil - F = God has free will Then the premises can we rephrased as follows: - P1: O - P2: O => ~E = ~O | ~E - ~P2: ~(~O | ~E) = O & E - P3: F - P4: F => E = ~F | E If P1, ~P2, P3 are conceded, then it follows: - E (from ~P2) - P4 = ~F | E (from E) Actually, ~P2 is enough to derive P4. ~P2 entails E, and E entails P4.