God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Do you disagree with his assessment about my co-worker? I mean, I realize you can’t get in his head, but does what Gad says resonate?

Limnor, I will go back and look at it. In all honesty, I rarely finish a post that Gad writes. At the point he gets into what he is inspired to know what other people think, I skip ahead. His anecdotes of what his nemesis friends think and say, in Gad's words, also ....... skip ahead. I will get go back to what the holy ghost told him to think about what someone thinks. For you. I will do this.

Thank you.

[Res Ipsa]

This is the same feeling I get with his materials he posts on this as well. He already assumes nothing compares to Mormonism which is the only true way, and therefore all things will fail in comparison or be lesser than. That is his unmoveable axiom regardless of the evidence. That's why I find Tolkien to be an astonishing antidote to this myopic way of seeing things.

Don't take this wrong because it's not meant to be a slam against you or other critics. Here is what I've noticed over time in comments on this board. I'm not making this up. A believing person/poster is lessened in some way through saying something like what you just said. Myopic being just one of the descriptors used. There are many of them that have been used by various folks.

And almost regularly, along with that 'lessening' there comes the 'something else is better'. It's almost like critics can't stop doing the same thing they accuse LDS folks of doing Cheapening what someone values and believes and then claiming to have something better.

In this particular case, Tolkien. It could have just as well been something else or someone else. It could have been another word other than myopic. Anything is better than Mormonism or the Gospel of Jesus Christ as members refer to it.

It doesn't do anything for the critics to act like those they claim to have elevated themselves above.

OK. Done venting. It's not personal. It's something I've noticed somewhat frequently on the board. It comes across as a form/kind of arrogance.

You and others may even be blind to it, but it's rather obvious. And its not like fellow critics are going to point it out

Regards,
MG

Mote and beam.

[Res Ipsa]

You know, the interesting thing is, is that the idea/concept that God can write straight with crooked lines really isn't that controversial. This idea shows up in the world under various guises:

Kintsugi (Japanese): The art of repairing broken pottery with gold, making the piece more beautiful for having been broken.

Stoicism: The idea that "the impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way."

Modern Psychology: The concept of post-traumatic growth, where individuals find new purpose and strength specifically because of the challenges they faced.

We learn that no mistake must be final. We can grow and change as a result. That crooked lines can become straight. In the middle or at the end of the struggles we find meaning.

Sounds like a school, doesn't it? The point of the OP is that God, being the great schoolmaster, is the architect of this process and has provided us with the opportunity to grow as a result. This runs across humanity as a whole.

And it shows up in Tolkien's work along with other great writers. Really not all that controversial, right?

Regards,
MG

Perhaps, it’s not controversial because it is trivial.

[Res Ipsa]

I think we’ve reached an impasse, and it may help to name it plainly. There appear to be discussion rules in play where certain terms are out of bounds while others are conditionally acceptable. Myopic is off-limits. Limited is taken as disrespectful. Better or worse triggers missionary comparisons. Different is acceptable, with caveats.

Those are thick rules. It’s like playing chess where some pieces are allowed to move, but only in ways that never result in capture.

Seriously though—this comes down to premises. No one can force another person to accept a worldview, but discussion requires accepting that frameworks can be examined, compared, and sometimes found wanting in specific respects. If Mormon thought is treated as unassailable by definition, the conversation ends before it begins.

Keep in mind that the same individual has devoted pages and pages to asserting the inferiority of secularism.

[Gadianton]

Thank you both, this is helpful, but I want to test my understanding—there seems to be a fine distinction in that you’re not saying members are consciously lying or intending deception, but that their identify becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image? Is that a fair restatement?

I think I understand the model you’re describing, though now I think I should be more cautious with the word “lie,” since that signals intent whereas you seem to be describing it in terms of unconscious “story” management. I hope I’ve been clear that I’m less interested in moral judgment than in how the mechanism actually operates for believers themselves.

I'm not being entirely clear here, I admit, as I don't have a final opinion myself. I think we're dealing with pre-meditated dishonesty, self-deception, and community level lies -- social etiquettes built on deceptions that could be white or black lies. I've also used both the words "lie" and "fabrication" which aren't always the same thing. Saying one "knows the church is true" is nearly rote. Some members just say it out of practice, having said it since they were 6 years old. That isn't lying, though it requires a ton of self-deception to never question it, as questioning one's testimony is very common in the Church. Someone who sees others questioning theirs but feels totally secure has some major self-deception going on. But the confidence guy type absolutely lies profusely in the standard sense. These rise up in leadership fast. Leadership favors the talents of cluster B personality disorders. I think for a real, average member without a personality disorder, it involves telling some black lies, and it takes a lot of guts for them to work themselves up to do it. Some do it, others keep quite, and others, like Morley, are just too damn honest in every way and have to drop out.

I’m still curious how the system distinguishes between internal and external authority. In other words, if the “8-ball” always wins, was the answer provided from within? And is the answer testable from third party perspective? Do leaders always honor internal revelation? I think we talked about this before but I admit this is hard to understand. You said it was “grammar” but the check is so long as you don’t say the HG confirmed? In the love/marriage example, was the fellow speaking from his own internal revelation of did the HG confirmed?

The answer is not testable from a third-party perspective. Leaders should always honor personal revelation, assuming the person speaks fluent Mormonism, which means they won't ever "know" something that contradicts what their leaders "know". or that's inappropriate. Mostly, people claim personal revelation on Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, "should I marry this person?", "should I become a doctor?" but others come to use their powers generously, and they walk a fine line. There is some self-policing for those with a modicum of self-honesty. I'm sure I'm not the only Mormon to ever try praying about the answer on a test, get confirmation, and then get the answer wrong. Nobody has to ever know about such things, so one can train themselves to avoid falsifiable situations. In my roommate example, that guy was speaking from external revelation. He had presumably prayed, because he said had been given confirmation that this other girl was the one. That's his story, my explanation for his actions is much more cynical.

I didn't follow "if the 8-ball always wins, was the answer provided from within?"

[Whiskey]

Should say, "according to Whiskey according to [Gad]."

I am taking your word for it Gad. You got the priesthood of Santa Claus or whatever it is to know what people are thinking.

Do you disagree with his assessment about my co-worker? I mean, I realize you can’t get in his head, but does what Gad says resonate?

I am struggling to put all the pieces together on this coworker situation. Hard for me, at this point, to distinguish your own questions about yourself and your questions about your coworker. In light of that, here are the parts as I see them. I will weave Gad's stuff in perhaps.

Let's kick this off with a doozy. Religion and missionary work are a lot like other trades and businesses. It is like the Democrat party and teaching/media. It is like MLM of scriptures, shampoo and oils. It is not so damn unique that it takes a theology degree to figure out. You got a business, and you have to convince people to trade in this business. How do you do that? Missionary work is the same as teaching in the damn primary to kids under 8. It is a repetition and confirmation. Hoping you get folks/kids to say yeah, I am in. I will buy that crap.

All that ^^^^^ should not be treated as cynical. It is what it is.

Where does the holy ghost and confirmation fit? Easy..... we are all choosing all the time to make ourselves or others a priority. When it comes to god and religion... we are saying, it ain't me. It ain't me man. It ain't me. I will do this, I will believe this. I will share this because god or this church is a higher priority. I am in love with whatever and whoever, but, I will do something else because it ain't about me here. It is for god and this church. The god and church is a filler. It is a the thing that lets people choose the selfless option. And... love it or hate it, many relationships prioritize selflessness over selfishness.

The so-called inspiration or holy ghost is just the tool for saying — my authentic self is not the priority here, and that feels great. And let's face it, it can feel great and it solves a lot of problems for a lot of people — until it can't. In the extreme, it is just douchebaggery and imitation. In moderation, it is selflessness, shamelessness and service. In moderation, it is a great thing and we need more of that. We need people to make others a priority. But the complete abandonment of authenticity for a god or religion or sales position at an MLM or whatever. That'll eff you up real good eventually.

[Limnor]

“I didn't follow "if the 8-ball always wins, was the answer provided from within?"

There seems to be an internally generated type of revelation and an externally generated type of revelation—this isn’t clear to me.

For example, an internally generated revelation is one in which you don’t have to consult the 8-ball but an externally generated one requires you to do so.

Am I misunderstanding that?

[Marcus]

Thank you both, this is helpful, but I want to test my understanding—there seems to be a fine distinction in that you’re not saying members are consciously lying or intending deception, but that their identify becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image? Is that a fair restatement?

There is an LDS saying, something along the lines of 'a testimony is found in the giving of it.' It comes, If I recall correctly from an old missionary story where a missionary asked a leader, 'how can I bear my testimony when i'm not really sure I have one?' The answer was to 'keep bearing your testimony and eventually it will come.'

Looking closely at that advice, it's clear the leader is suggesting the missionary lie and pretend he believes, as a method to reach belief. This method seemingly gives permission for a lie, if it's done for a good reason. The testimony becomes performative rather than a real expression of feelings. In my opinion, that performative nature never quite goes away, and it becomes impossible to know who is sincere and who is just performing in order to fit in.

So yes, as you stated, "their identity becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image," with the distortion being a lie, but a permissible one given its honorable intent (according to Mormonism).

Reading that now, post-Mormonism, it hardly seems possible for an entire group to maintain such deception and dishonesty, but in my opinion it happens and it's fairly stable, as long as those who question any of it are in the minority and leave, or are shunned. In this sense I agree with Gad's explanation that many don't really believe.

Edited to add: I see Gad has expressed some similar thoughts in his latest post.

[Whiskey]

“I didn't follow "if the 8-ball always wins, was the answer provided from within?"

There seems to be an internally generated type of revelation and an externally generated type of revelation—this isn’t clear to me.

For example, an internally generated revelation is one in which you don’t have to consult the 8-ball but an externally generated one requires you to do so.

Am I misunderstanding that?

my take... without representing other posters here.

It is both. The internal force is the selfless abandonment of one's authentic self. It is real. It avoids conflict. It serves a lot of purposes. The external force is the affirmation that what one did is cool, right, worthy, correct, praised. One is not more real or more powerful than the other. They are both REAL forces. People survive within systems and relationships by listening to both. That does not mean it always works out. But it sure as hell works.

[Limnor]

I am struggling to put all the pieces together on this coworker situation. Hard for me, at this point, to distinguish your own questions about yourself and your questions about your coworker.

Your full response helps me understand my coworker better in that I think you are saying that “God said no” can work as an override of real feelings—at least that is how I am reading what you said.

You seem to be asking for additional personal details of the story so I’ll share. I had asked him “what if the answer is “no” to the Moroni challenge,” but I had not read or prayed about it at the time. In fact, I was afraid to do so, though I don’t really know why. So his response that it was impossible confused me as I wanted to know if what my coworker said was true—that he has received positive confirmation and it was impossible not to.

Part of my theory of the book is dependent upon that exchange—if it really was impossible for God to deny that the book was true, then what does that mean?

That thinking, in part, led me to the conclusion that it was an encoded confessional—so “true.”