God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

I think we have to agree on terms within this hypothetical game. Like how you understand “agency,” is the meaning universal? In Paul, agency is real but impaired—we will and act from a fallen orientation that can’t perfect itself. There is such a wide gulf that I’m not sure your game can reconcile the two, and I’m not convinced you are open to understanding the other view—you’ve already defeated the model you’ve set up.

I agree "agency" isn't a consistent enough idea that we can speculate about it in general, we almost have to bring in particular religions to talk about it

MG's paragraph is entirely shaped by Mormonism, so I can't really answer without bringing up Mormonism. The idea being that if things are too clear, people act "without much thought". But why is thought necessary? If life is like a video game, and we're given cheat codes or the game is too easy, we don't develop any skills. But he's taking it as a foregone conclusion that skill-building is the essential feature of moral good. Mormons tend to believe this but the scriptures seem pretty focused on obedience to clear instructions given by prophets.

Mormonism seems to assert contra-causal freedom, but this isn't a very popular position, largely because it's incoherent. The more sophisticated version of agency is "compatibilism" or practical freedom. I'm free if I'm not bound to this chair and I wish to get up and walk; even though physics as already determined that I will stand before my conscious is aware of it. I'm not "really" free to do otherwise, I just feel free. Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist, was the first to suggest it, followed by Hume, but since then, everyone from Daniel Dennett to Jordan Peterson to the late Mormon philosopher Clark Goble who visited this forum accepts agency under compatibilism.

Compatibilism, which is the most accepted version of agency by both believing and non-believing intellectuals, I'm not just toying with an idea from left field here, is a gift to utilitarianism. If good is defined as collective happiness, then absolutely God could create a perfect world where everyone is happy, there is perfect order, and people might seem like "robots" but they don't feel that way, therefore, their "choices" are absolutely subjectively meaningful to them. Even the most hardcore DCT theologian is going to have a hard time explaining how heaven would be at odds with basic utilitarian assumptions that overall community happiness is the criteria for good. A heaven fulfilled with happy people who get along is nearly universally believed in. And so problem solved. We don't need trials. We don't need evil. God could use straight lines all day and create a utopia with compatibilistic freedom.

[Marcus]

Virtually all of the statements outlining the behavior of a god made by the OP are indistinguishable from the human behavior of interpreting events after the fact in order to support one's position. This latest one is especially fraught:

...Might we consider that a Being with unlimited power could make a crooked line serve the function of a straight one by altering the context in which it is interpreted?..

The word 'interpreted' puts emphasis on how something appears, not how it really is. Taking something 'crooked' and making it appear 'straight' seems to imply that interpreting the context is all that is necessary.

Bottom line for me, again, every attribute OP has suggested for a god defines a human strategy of post hoc manipulation of interpretation. in my opinion, this is the result of assuming one's conclusions, and then being put into a position of having to massage all data into something supporting those conclusions.

... For me the question is still active—especially whether whatever outcome happens becomes confirmation after the fact. That concern seemed shared by most, if not all, of the players. The Red Queen problem reflects that, as I am understanding Morley’s point.

I’d prefer a way to affirm love, agency, and providence without retroactively declaring every landing spot intended. I don’t want watered down choice and no real risk. I’d prefer to be able to honestly say “this should not have happened.”

Agreed. Another vote for the Red Queen scenario from me.

[MG 2.0]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept...if there is a creator God...that He would "write straight with crooked lines?" It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn't ask the question if I didn't have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine...as usual...folks will 'hop' all over the place simply trying to either make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a creator God, can/does He write straight with crooked lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I'm going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

Regards,
MG

Back to my original post and my past writings having to do with the Sorites Paradox.

Questions that could be considered:

How much "crookedness' can exist before the line is no longer straight?

How much imperfection can exist in a prophet, institution, doctrine, or history before it stops being "divinely inspired"?

The Sorites Paradox (problem) might dictate that:

One flaw doesn't negate divine guidance. Another flaw doesn't negate it. Another still doesn't. But at SOME POINT, critics argue that accumulation DOES negate it.

And of utmost importance, all the while, as we are traveling crooked lines, God...who is in the midst of all things...is able to make (our) paths (and humanities') straight.

It comes back to the 5d thing gadianton was talking about and I referred to earlier. Things get rather complex REAL FAST when trying to determine how much crookedness is an acceptable amount (Sorites) before we call out the Creator. Again, on the hypothetical assumption being made here, that a creator God exists.

Who has the qualifications to specify or 'call out' the exact threshold in all of this? That is the problem that lies at the root of the paradox.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I'm going to bow out again for a while. The conversation is continuing to generate interesting contributions.

Thank you for keeping it civil and not driven by feelings one way or the other about particular individuals or religious beliefs/groups.

Like I said, I think we can dig a bit deeper and there are a number of folks here that may be qualified to do that.

Carry on. Good discussion.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Ha! Sometimes it sounds like what I imagine LDS Gospel Doctrine (or whatever it’s called) classes must be like.

For the most part, my experience of the LDS Gospel Doctrine class is that the questions expected/allowed for a particular lesson are laid out in the lesson manual, which the "students" are expected to read before class. And pretty much everyone knows what the "acceptable" answers are.

I've been asked on more than one occasion, as a student, to stick to the authorised Qs and As, and keep my unorthodox ideas to myself. Usually such a request is made on the grounds that there may be relatively new members in the class, with the implication that I could disrupt or damage someone's faith. Probably fair enough.

I don't think that my experience is rare - it's certainly not unique. For example, I'd be surprised if IHQ has not been "warned" about asking awkward questions, as that seems to be his MO.

The word that springs to mind is “fragile.”

[Marcus]

...Back to my original post and my past writings having to do with the Sorites Paradox.

Questions that could be considered:

How much "crookedness' can exist before the line is no longer straight?

How much imperfection can exist in a prophet, institution, doctrine, or history before it stops being "divinely inspired"?

The Sorites Paradox (problem) might dictate that:

One flaw doesn't negate divine guidance. Another flaw doesn't negate it. Another still doesn't. But at SOME POINT, critics argue that accumulation DOES negate it...

Oh boy. That was quite the jump. Morley provided the most recent explanation (of many!) for why Sorites may not be relevant the way the OP uses it:

The "Sorites Paradox" is a philosophical framing that demonstrates how vague predicates--for example, "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?"--lead to absurd conclusions. It's basically a warning against using amorphous, poorly defined terminology.

To my knowledge, no one here would ask "At what point does Mormonism become undeniably/indefensibly untrue?" except you. The question is almost poorly framed as the claim that you yourself make when you stand up in Fast and Testimony Meeting, and exclaim, "I know that the Church is true!"

This whole idea is a straw man that you just now created. Folks here (present company excluded, of course) are more likely present arguments with terminology they can defend.

Yes.

And of utmost importance, all the while, as we are traveling crooked lines, God...who is in the midst of all things...is able to make (our) paths (and humanities') straight.

this is another of mg's hypotheticals, I assume, that he would like others to weigh in on. Personally, given the hypothetical existence of a god, I would disagree.

...Things get rather complex REAL FAST when trying to determine how much crookedness is an acceptable amount (Sorites) before we call out the Creator...Who has the qualifications to specify or 'call out' the exact threshold in all of this? ...

Is the question no longer whether a god can use crookedness, but that a god is crooked themselves? With the corollary, how much crookedness is a god allowed?? If a god is assumed to have 'crookedness' as a personal attribute, it seems irrelevant whether the god would then need to use human crookedness to accomplish their goals.

[Gadianton]

The word 'interpreted' puts emphasis on how something appears, not how it really is. Taking something 'crooked' and making it appear 'straight' seems to imply that interpreting the context is all that is necessary.

A crucial observation that all but gives away the playbook, especially when "crooked lines" become "straight" in a different context seems to come right from Joseph Smith's letter to Nancy Rigdon when he explained, that which is wrong in one situation might be right in another.

As for the Red Queen, note that the Red Queen will also claim to play 5d chess that nobody can understand so just accept it.

[Doctor Steuss]

The Legendarium is the vast group of myths, histories, languages, and philosophical reflections created by J. R. R. Tolkien to give depth and reality to Middle-earth. It is not like a single story is involved. It's more like an entire mythic world like a secondary reality with its own creation account, ancient wars, fading ages, genealogies, poems, and invented languages.

The Legendarium explores how creation, freedom, pride, sacrifice, decline, and hope unfold across time. Events are shaped not only by heroes and villains, but by music, memory, and moral choice. Power is dangerous when seized, healing is often quiet and costly, and the greatest victories are frequently acts of endurance rather than conquest. And it is more to the small and unimportant who effect greater change than the mighty and heroic.

Tolkien's books like The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings are expressions of this larger mythic framework, each telling only part of a much older and deeper story. JRR's son Christopher gave us the Unfinished Tales as well as the 12 volume History of Middle Earth which so many are just not aware of in any kind of detail, since the movies only focus on a small part of the 3rd Age of Middle Earth, while the entirety is in 4 Ages. The Legendarium treats history as layered and fragmentary, full of lost songs, half-remembered truths, and competing perspectives, much like real ancient myth.

In short, the Legendarium is a mythology of meaning: a world built to feel older than the stories told within it, where light diminishes, memory matters, and hope survives not because evil is absent, but because goodness refuses to vanish.

Just to add (and I'm going by memory here, so I apologize if I am mixing Tolkien's Legendarium with something else), there's also an underlying theme of the cyclical nature of all things. Power (the rise and fall), the repeated patterns within the overarching myth-cycle, the impermanence of creation and the inevitability of destruction (for example, Two Lamps). Even the cyclical nature of collective and individual memory (gaining knowledge, and the slow loss of it).

If Tolkien had no ethics, and had decided to go the route of pretending to be a prophet, the religious tradition would have had an internal consistency, and richness that would have rivaled most modern and ancient religions. His only failing was in the creation of the orcs as being seen by all races as irredeemable, and worthy of only death. To me, that seems to be the most problematic glaring hole in the overall morality of the word he created.

[MG 2.0]

One more thing on Sorites since Morley and I interjected it into the hopscotch game by each throwing in a Hoppy Taw.

Both 'sides' should admit that “true/inspired/crooked/straight” are vague and do not admit razor‑sharp cutoffs.

Then back to my question, who is going to decide what that threshold is as we look at all the surrounding parameters associated with the proposition that God can write straight with crooked lines?

That seems to be the constant friction/contact between critics and believers in the Restoration narrative and whether or not a man named Jesus was God and was resurrected and returned to the earth in 1820 (this can be bookmarked). The Restoration has been coming in and out of the discussion but it would be more interesting, for now, to keep things centered more on the OP and associated discussion.

It's easy to reach thresholds when it comes to Mormonism and the Restoration.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The word 'interpreted' puts emphasis on how something appears, not how it really is. Taking something 'crooked' and making it appear 'straight' seems to imply that interpreting the context is all that is necessary.

A crucial observation that all but gives away the playbook, especially when "crooked lines" become "straight" in a different context seems to come right from Joseph Smith's letter to Nancy Rigdon when he explained, that which is wrong in one situation might be right in another.

Excellent point.

As for the Red Queen, note that the Red Queen will also claim to play 5d chess that nobody can understand so just accept it.

lol. Emphasis on 'claim' but that is becoming the point of the thread, isn't?