God can write straight with crooked lines.

[malkie]

What I hear in your stories is a commitment to integrity whether anyone’s watching or not, and without expectation of reward.

What I was trying to say is that it's really easy to be the hero in the story - your own story - if you stick to talking about the good things that you do without conscious effort, but that this presents a distorted, lopsided view of reality. What I described doesn't make me good, and doesn't represent a high level of integrity because while I can and did compare myself favourably with others, it's only for the part of me that I don't have to work at. I don't know why that's the case, though I refer - a bit tongue-in-cheek - to my upbringing.

This is why I also referred to

I just realised that I didn't "close the loop" in my previous comment. So, although I appear to have been more honest than a number of members of the church that I encountered, I don't see that as a great virtue, because I didn't have to fight for it - it came naturally to me.

What I hear in your stories is a commitment to integrity whether anyone’s watching or not, and without expectation of reward.

What I was trying to say is that it's really easy to be the hero in the story - your own story - if you stick to talking about the good things that you do without conscious effort, but that this presents a distorted, lopsided view of reality. What I described doesn't make me good, and doesn't represent a high level of integrity because while I could and did compare myself favourably with others, it's only for the part of me that I don't have to continually work at. I don't know why these parts are what they are, though I refer - a bit tongue-in-cheek - to my upbringing.

This is why I also referred to The Screwtape Letters. What I recognised there, through CS Lewis' exquisite prose, were other aspects of my person that were not good or nice, and that therefore require effort, ongoing, to overcome. in my opinion, progress there is where virtue may be found, rather than in the aspects that come relatively naturally.

[Limnor]

I don't know why these parts are what they are, though I refer - a bit tongue-in-cheek - to my upbringing.

This is why I also referred to The Screwtape Letters. What I recognised there, through CS Lewis' exquisite prose, were other aspects of my person that were not good or nice, and that therefore require effort, ongoing, to overcome. in my opinion, progress there is where virtue may be found, rather than in the aspects that come relatively naturally.

I think a person’s upbringing forms parts of their conscience, but I also think it is valuable to question those instincts and even motivation. And to identify those things in yourself that don’t match where your conscience leads. I think self-examination is important.

I’ve always read the “inside of the cup” language as referencing a tendency not just among Pharisees, but a very human trait—it can be easy, and tempting, to do things that are seen. And I think a conscience can be abused into accepting those external things as good, or good enough. But it sounds like you are describing a recognition that there are areas that are maybe unseen that need work.

Integrity probably shows up less in what comes naturally than in what keeps having to be overcome, especially internally. This actually sounds very Pauline to me—not in a doctrinal sense, but in the way internal struggle is depicted.

[Gadianton]

I can’t tell if you are looking for an explanation for this from a Christian point of view, but I’m thinking there may be room for discussion.

The point was the general assertion of God but with lots of crookedness made by a Christian should leave the possibility open at the very least, that another Christian's interpretation is the right one, or that the right interpretation may still land you in hell.

I’m wondering if part of what you are saying is due to the idea that “salvation from sin and death,” and ultimately, hell, just doesn’t carry the same weight in Mormonism that it does in other Christian concepts.

It's true that Mormons sweep universal sin under the rug. But what I was saying is that "crookedness" isn't real if one is guaranteed a seat at the banquet table. Most Christians I've met absolutely do not believe there is any crookedness or ambiguity in life. They think they are right about everything and a tip of the hat to Huck's mention of authoritarianism: justifications for their political leaders and a six-day earth roll off the conveyer together like beacon and sausages.

Salvation from sin and death is already an infinite good that doesn’t need further accounting to balance out suffering or disappointment. If bad things happen, the meaning of salvation doesn’t go away—it just hurts.

This is absolutely true. If one really believes, then loss of anything, whether a family member or pet should barely hurt at all. In fact, I've used this argument against faith a few times. I recall being at Denny's one day by myself a long time ago listening in on a table of born-again Christians talking, most of them were older, and one was like in her nineties saying that she "wasn't ready to go yet" and everyone was supportive. Sure -- you're not ready to go because you don't really believe there is anything on the other side.

I’m starting to think a lot of this depends on the starting point. If the problem is a fallen nature in need of redemption, then grace really can be enough and suffering doesn’t have to count as points. But if the problem is an undeveloped nature meant to progress, then suffering contributes, which creates demand for explanation.

this is a great insight, since suffering nor works count, there is no reason not to jump into heaven and leave family behind at twenty no less ninety. Death is about as real as Pac-man getting melted by Blinky. Hurt, loss, frustration, basically everything in life is essentially pointless. Except accepting Jesus.

[I Have Questions]

Maybe I can go a little further and suggest we all just accept the definition of “God’s purpose” being simply that we become “better”; spouses, children, siblings, neighbours, friends, citizens, employees etc. and leave it at that.

On the one hand, it avoids MG desperation, but on the other, wife 27 might just take that advice and be the best wife 27 she could. Perhaps for her circumstances, who’s to say that would be wrong, but it would be hard to fault wife 28 for being a terrible 28th wife and trying to escape.

The wife example prompted a thought - what may be a crooked line for one, could simultaneously be straight writing for another. Wife 28 escaping the adversity of being married to a tyrant might be her straight writing. Wife escaping the adversity of being married to a tyrant might be a crooked line for that tyrant. It can change depending on the perspective from which it is being viewed. The act of escaping is both a reward for one, and a wake up call for the other.

[malkie]

On the one hand, it avoids MG desperation, but on the other, wife 27 might just take that advice and be the best wife 27 she could. Perhaps for her circumstances, who’s to say that would be wrong, but it would be hard to fault wife 28 for being a terrible 28th wife and trying to escape.

The wife example prompted a thought - what may be a crooked line for one, could simultaneously be straight writing for another. Wife 28 escaping the adversity of being married to a tyrant might be her straight writing. Wife escaping the adversity of being married to a tyrant might be a crooked line for that tyrant. It can change depending on the perspective from which it is being viewed. The act of escaping is both a reward for one, and a wake up call for the other.

Sometimes I feel as if we're trying too hard to fit all sorts of decisions and occurrences into a "straight line" / "crooked line" metaphor. I have two related reasons for thinking this may be an issue:

• It forces into a binary decision, even in complex situations - MG should be concerned about this, right?
• As a result, it "flattens" the judgement, grouping misdemeanors and heinous crimes together

[Limnor]

The point was the general assertion of God but with lots of crookedness made by a Christian should leave the possibility open at the very least, that another Christian's interpretation is the right one, or that the right interpretation may still land you in hell.

Everything you’ve said is fair. There is a tendency for people to assert their belief as “correct,” but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a flaw. Sometimes that’s just what it looks like when belief is personal rather than abstract. What matters more to me is not whether someone claims correctness, but where that claim is grounded. I’ve been asking myself if it is then fair to push back on a personal view of God through Mormonism, and think the line becomes one of authority. I think any tradition that claims exclusive authority opens itself to evaluation on different terms than private belief.

There’s something very real in the way you’re describing behavior, and some of it resonates with me. Spiritually, I think we are called to give our lives to God—to let something old die so something new can take shape. Where I’m careful is in distinguishing between giving one’s life to God and giving it to a system that claims to speak for God.

For me, the most compelling Christian view isn’t institutional as much as it is the idea of Christ dwelling within a person—shaping conscience, responding to suffering, and answering life’s questions from the inside out rather than by appeal to an external straightedge.

[Gadianton]

Everything you’ve said is fair. There is a tendency for people to assert their belief as “correct,” but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a flaw. Sometimes that’s just what it looks like when belief is personal rather than abstract. What matters more to me is not whether someone claims correctness, but where that claim is grounded.

I wouldn't say it's a flaw either. First and foremost, I'm trying to define what "crooked" might mean and what it means for somebody to assert the world is crooked, and really mean it, without just saying "we're all sinners" or "God's ways aren't are ways" such that the path (knowledge) is murky but the end result of actual salvation (ontology) is clear to the point of mere assumption. If the person asserting crookedness isn't full of existential dread, then it's likely the assertation is a flippant apologetic.

IHQ:

well, I'm only speculating that by crooked line we must at the very minimum take that to mean perceptual. It could be perceptual but not actual, or both, but if it's actual without being perceptual, which is possible, then nobody would ever suggest crookedness. Kant is straight-line all the way, he tells you to question the angel by the authority of the CI. A truly "crooked line" believer is highly unusual. "crooked line" as an apologetic is really straight line, and one of the most facile and common straight-line apologetics around, the flippant "God's way's aren't ours" kind of answer; my entire thing here with MG is questioning whether it's believable he's really offering a crooked line. It's like my right wing friend: you can point out all the drugs and cheating he did as a married Christian and say that looks awfully crooked path, but he'll immediately shrug it off and say, "we're all sinners". If his president is in the Epstein files, "wasn't everybody? we're all sinners, ha ha". If Bill Gates is in the Epstein files, "that dirty bastard! no wonder his wife left him!" Nothing causes him to pause for two seconds and question anything he's ever believed. It all makes (subjective) sense immediately. Kant might take a little longer to make sense of it, but he does make sense of it. So both my right-wing friend and Kant are straight-line thinkers, at the end of the day. So was Hegel, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Hegel was the absolute pinnacle of "making the crooked path straight" and Kierkegaard was the most extreme example of saying that isn't possible. crookedness is actually a real feature, not a facile excuse. But, even K can be used as a facile excuse and the way I was taught at BYU makes K more like the most sophisticated straight-line apologetics in the name of the crooked line around. "The Book of Mormon teaches Kierkegaard, therefore the Church is true" was the subtext of my teacher.

As you say, the polygamist whose wife ran off might question how God could do that to him. If he had that many wives, he must be really special, and for one to run off like that is a tremendous disrespect to the priesthood both he and God share. How could God let that happen? Who knows where that line of thinking will take him, if it's sincerely a faith crisis for him.

[Limnor]

I wouldn't say it's a flaw either. First and foremost, I'm trying to define what "crooked" might mean and what it means for somebody to assert the world is crooked, and really mean it, without just saying "we're all sinners" or "God's ways aren't are ways" such that the path (knowledge) is murky but the end result of actual salvation (ontology) is clear to the point of mere assumption. If the person asserting crookedness isn't full of existential dread, then it's likely the assertation is a flippant apologetic.

Yes, this. Crookedness that never costs anything isn’t crooked. it’s just a way of sounding humble while disallowing actual risk.

[I Have Questions]

Let’s put Teresa’s fairly straightforward intent for crooked lines and straight writing to one side, and instead use an example MG 2.0 has used in the past to try and establish what definitions he’s giving crooked lines and straight writing. He has in the past explained that God allows pedophiles to abuse children because those perpetrators need the opportunity to exercise their agency and to also gain access to the path of repentance (I’m not kidding, that has been his position). So for that example, presumably the crooked line would be the abuse. And the straight writing would come for the perpetrator via the process of repentance.

Does anyone think I’ve misrepresented MG’s position on that situation and how he might apply his definition of crooked lines and straight writing?

The victim in this case was not exercising any agency and incurred crooked lines in their life through not fault of their own. Where is the straight writing for them?

[malkie]

Let’s put Teresa’s fairly straightforward intent for crooked lines and straight writing to one side, and instead use an example MG 2.0 has used in the past to try and establish what definitions he’s giving crooked lines and straight writing. He has in the past explained that God allows pedophiles to abuse children because those perpetrators need the opportunity to exercise their agency and to also gain access to the path of repentance (I’m not kidding, that has been his position). So for that example, presumably the crooked line would be the abuse. And the straight writing would come for the perpetrator via the process of repentance.

Does anyone think I’ve misrepresented MG’s position on that situation and how he might apply his definition of crooked lines and straight writing?

The victim in this case was not exercising any agency and incurred crooked lines in their life through not fault of their own. Where is the straight writing for them?

I think that the orthodox Mormon answer to your last question is in the Celestial Kingdom - assuming that, at the end, they merit a place there.

A case of a future "reward" that nobody can verify exists, against an all-too-real present day cost and suffering. It's overwhelmingly likely, however, that the children being abused will never even hear about the putative reward before they die.