God can write straight with crooked lines.

[bill4long]

believers who already have spiritual experiences confirming truth

Well, no, they don't confirm truth. They merely make it seem like your belief is true, which may or may not be.

Obviously you've never had a disconfirming spiritual experience. They exist. Believe me.

[Limnor]

I don’t think you have to limit yourself to a single interpretation...

Before delving into the related questions, you're right, I wasn't consistent here. I Do think it might be beyond interpretive control to say what straight vs. crooked means, however, I do think we might figure something out about the mind that suggests the model. What did MG mean? It's one of those things he has a sense for but can't quite put his finger on, and we have a great sense that it's an outright apologetic to get the church out of any sticky situation after the fact and always special pleading for the church. But it is quite possible in my mind that it is a true general principle, but apologists mostly gravitate toward the useful part for their leaders. Even some of MG's impulses suggest it could be something more than an apologetic, he just must reach beyond himself, into the darkness, and hope there is light yet up the way.

Compare it to the problem of evil, are "straight" and "crooked" simple substitutional terms for good and evil? If so, it's barely interesting, at least to me.

I take the intent to be coy, we don't want to say God commits evil, but evil is quite useful as opposition to build character, and so let's sneak in what we can get away with.

My mother used to say that Satan will tell 99 truths to tell one lie. Does that resonate as a truth to you? It's quite devious. Wouldn't we say the ultimate lie would be the one with the greatest setup -- a whole lot of truth before the rug is pulled out?

But I never heard her say the converse, is the converse true? Does God tell 99 lies in order to tell one truth? That doesn't sound right. We might want to ask, does God create a whole lot of crookedness in order to show that it is straight? It would seem like the more evil God uses as a setup, then how great the joy when the plot twist comes and good prevails.

The problem is that it's impossible to tell the difference between God and Satan, it could really be heaven or really be hell, or it could be the ultimate setup for a rug pull either way. The similarity sharpens both the evil for Satan and the good for God. Hence, Abraham sacrificing Isaac becomes the ultimate purity test but it's contextualized very well by the ultimate repugnancy of child sacrifices that were common with Abraham's neighbors, and also Shakespearean authoritarianism, as perverse loyalty tests.

If you would, Limnor, go ahead and pack this one up the hill for me.

Some thoughts.

Something is becoming more clear to me here that I appreciate and respect. You seem to be treating MG—and maybe others—as someone reaching for something real but blinded by philosophical tools that don’t work and are further confounded by institutional pressure. I think you might be searching for a way to define the problem so that it answers the question “What does MG mean?” with a charitable—and clarifying—answer. One that is helpful to enable the “reach.”

MG has provided some clarity by stating that he sees straightness as able to be seen retroactively while crookedness is what is experienced while living in the moment, which means you can’t reliably tell whether a given crooked situation is part of something given by God or false. You can only tell in the macro—after outcomes are known.

And I think that’s what is troubling to you—and me as well—as a means to determine truth and whether you are aligned to God’s will.

Maybe it would help to name the issue—under MG’s model, discernment gives way to trust in whoever claims authority to explain the macro, and because of this the model inevitably functions to justify outcomes rather than lead to discernment and right judgment.

Further, any model in which evil and good are indistinguishable until the end cannot help with that discernment—the only hope is for trust in authority for resolution. From inside the experience, there’s no reliable way to tell whether the crookedness we’re witnessing is from God or from Satan, and discernment to be able to tell the difference collapses into obedience.

[Limnor]

Bringing it back to Abraham, I think the repeatable lesson is that we have faith and trust that God could raise his son (and yes I believe this example had a symbolic purpose) from the dead, and to act on that faith in resurrected life—this is what Paul would call “Christ in you.”

If what is repeatable in Abraham is faith in resurrection rather than obedience to a morally questionable command, then the story does not require suspension of discernment. Abraham does not believe killing Isaac is good, he believes God will not let death win.

The same logic that makes Abraham’s obedience straight only in retrospect also makes church discipline possible without adjudicating truth—because once you defer morality, obedience replaces discernment by design.

[Limnor]

Might as well include Frodo in this as well.In The Lord of the Rings, it is never implied that evil is good in the moment. Resolution comes from refusing evil through discernment and trusting that life, mercy, and restoration of the king will eventually occur. Which can be seen in Abraham’s actions, his faith in God and resurrection, not obedience through moral ambiguity.

Gad I’m working on some thoughts to discuss your comments from a while ago about the influence of spiritualism on Christianity—I’ve been thinking about Moses’ staff, the Urim and Thummin, and other devices as compared to false priests’ and prophets’ use of similar items.

[MG 2.0]

In a previous post I mentioned that history is not binary. It can't be reduced to an either/or, this or that...in many if not most cases. That being the case, we are also making history. I think the same principle can apply. That is why I keep harping on the concept/idea that God can write straight with crooked lines.

For those that would like to flesh out the idea that history cannot be reduced to a 'binary' I would suggest listening to about the first ten to twelve minutes of the new Ken Burns documentary on the Revolutionary War. Chapter one.

It may help you understand where I'm coming from.

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-american- ... o-be-free/

Also, I've answered a few questions that have come up recently on the last page or two of this thread for those that are interested. One particular poster who just can't seem to get enough of me was apparently waiting with baited breath.

Philo, you brought up some interesting things to consider. I hope my answer might satisfy your curiosity.

As I've mentioned, I've been spreading myself around a bit. Taking care of my wife being number one. Into the wound care specialist for the second time yesterday. We did get a settlement on our car that was totaled. And yes, there really was an accident on December 6th (there are probably still some folks questioning whether I'm telling the truth).

Friday we're leaving for Idaho for my wife's mother's funeral. She and 'dad' spent many years there and many of their friends (some who are still alive) are still living there. The place where she will be interned is in the cemetery right next to dad. Salt of the earth folks. Endured to the end true to the faith.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

MG has provided some clarity by stating that he sees straightness as able to be seen retroactively while crookedness is what is experienced while living in the moment, which means you can’t reliably tell whether a given crooked situation is part of something given by God or false. You can only tell in the macro—after outcomes are known.

That's what he's said this round, but he's pretty stream-of-thought. Whatever it is, it's special pleading for Mormonism. Not getting an answer to the Book of Mormon would be crooked. Getting a "yes" to Book of Mormon and "yes" to Joseph Smith but "no" to Dallin and "yes" to Denver would be crooked for MG but pretty darn straight for Snuffer. He hasn't responded yet whether outcomes that don't involve the Church as true are hypothetically possible. If he doesn't accept that it's possible that in the end, his church isn't the True, that his church was the optical illusion and straightness comes with something else, then I'll stick with the movie analogy. He'll entertain crookedness for the actors so long as we know the ending of the movie corresponds to his version of straightness and nobody else's.

Going back to the Packer talk, Packer says that we step into the darkness only to find that it's lit up ahead just a little way. But Packer's talk guarantees that outcome. If there's real risk, real darkness, real crookedness, then we can't really know if things will work out or not, we can hope there is light ahead, but P's narrative establishing light as ahead is like looking up the answer in the back of the book and then pretending to work out the problem.

It was a sharp insight on your part to note Kierkegaard's Abraham test was a one time deal, not a model. See, that evades the Packer's talk problem. If it were a model, we have the cheat code for when God sends the problem our way. It would be a valid trial if say, God sends the trial but we didn't know about Abraham. I didn't recall Kierkegaard saying that, but it's super important, and we can take it to the next level. I took a class that covered K from a secular school after I'd had the same material from BYU. I tried to trap my teacher in the same way. I explained that in Either/Or, there is the aesthete, the ethical, and the religious. K is concerned about "authenticity". K concludes that the religious life is the most authentic. Great, now that we've read Kierkegaard, it's just like having read Packer's talk, we have the cheat code. We know the religious life is the answer, so we carefully study K . (I didn't say this part to him as I likely wasn't aware of it) So K might say Abraham isn't the model. But we don't need it, we have something better, K's description of the Religious mode, which is now our cheat code. That will help us beat our own test, even if our test has nothing to do with Abrahams.

Care to guess what my teacher's response was? I did not anticipate it.

[Limnor]

Care to guess what my teacher's response was? I did not anticipate it.

If you are using a cheat code, you’ve established a rule and are no longer acting out of faith?

Or maybe with the entirety of Hebrews 11 as the model of accepting risk and moving forward on faith without seeing the end result.

[I Have Questions]

Sorites is literally powerless and hence useless for determining if the Church is true. It cannot protect truth claims from a cumulative evidence that refutes the Church.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Regards,
MG

Sorry Philo, it looks like you’re getting neither a retraction nor an explanation from MG on this one.

[I Have Questions]

Apparently there is a point made here that I have ignored. You're correct that the Sorites Paradox doesn't establish truth claims in the first place. I accept that. However, that doesn't mean it's useless to the believer, it merely means it functions differently than critics suggest. For believers who already have spiritual experiences confirming truth, Sorites explains why refined certainty is a process, not a binary conclusion."

When nefariously copying and pasting AI responses it is best not to leave the end quotation marks in place. Especially when you’ve hastily removed the opening ones.

You continue to demonstrate that you haven’t got the first clue what the Sorites Paradox is. It is not a process that gets to the truth of a matter by small steps. It’s a process by which “truth” is gradually eroded, a “grain” at a time, until you arrive at a falsehood due to flawed assumptions and a failure to acknowledge all the information. It’s about reaching a wrong conclusion due to absurd and incorrect thinking. So maybe it does apply to your belief in Mormonism after all.

It demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim it demonstrates.

[Limnor]

As a critic, this poses no moral dilemma for me whatsoever. I evaluate the truth of the claim that “the Church is true” the same way that I evaluate every other truth claim: by placing the appropriate burden of proof on the person making the proposition. And, if that person fails to carry that burden, I am free to discard that truth claim without proving anything. Treating all truth claims the same way creates no dilemmas or conundrums.

MG2.0 does, however, create nasty moral dilemmas for the believer. Take the example “by their fruits ye shall know them. MG2.0’s claim robs the believer of the ability to exercise moral judgment at all. He will always interpret the actions of his church’s leaders, no matter how crooked, as God writing in straight lines. It is a complete abdication of moral responsibility. It is how MG2.0 twists himself into justifying child abuse as necessary for the abuser’s free agency.

Indeed, one could argue that MG2.0’s claim is a negation of actual free agency. If MG2.0 cannot distinguish between straight and crooked lines, does he actually have free agency. Isn’t knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to free agency? How can we choose between right and wrong when Sorites paradox means we can never distinguish between right and wrong?

2-3 days of thinking through this and just realized the analysis here reflects what I’ve finally arrived at as a conclusion.