God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Morley]

It's kind of a trick. If you get the answer that the LDS Church and Book of Mormon are 'true,' then it was the Holy Ghost. If you don't get that answer, after all your prayers, then obviously you're doing something wrong. Something so wrong that the Holy Ghost can't speak to you.

When I was a young man trying to stay in the Church--trying to get a testimony, praying and fasting and paying tithing, desperate to get the confirmation that never came--I went to see my Stake President. He suggested that there had to be some moral failing in me; that I must have some secret sin that I wouldn't own up to. All he could come up with was that I must be masturbating--or at the very least, I must be thinking unclean thoughts. I would get my testimony when the thoughts were gone--and, in fact, he suggested that my testimony would be the proof that the unclean thoughts were finally gone.

Well‽‽ Don't just leave us hanging, Morley!

Ha! Let's just say that, in this instance, God wasn't able to write straight with crooked lines. He had laid down so many crooked lines that even Monet wouldn't have been able to paint it.

[Limnor]

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.

I see these discussions as analytical in nature, and comparison seems unavoidable to me when you’re talking about epistemic models and meaning. Doing that carefully isn’t a claim of moral or intellectual elevation, it’s just understanding with clarity what different systems are actually doing.

What I hear you saying here is: Any comparison that implies “X does this better than Mormonism” is inherently disrespectful. You seem to be accusing critics of doing what Mormonism, and you yourself, has done—claiming to have something better. For example, the fullness of the gospel, restored truth, superior authority and etc. Philo has directly denied trying to do that and has taken time to explain the value he gains from Tolkien on his own terms.

[MG 2.0]

I have not once said Tolkien has something better. He isn't interested in that angle. His approach is different, not better or worse. There is no value judgement from Tolkien about his moral ideas other than faithfulness to who someone is and does. So, your misunderstanding is understandable as you are taking an apologetic approach trying to find out what is true. Tolkien isn't, and I am not either by simply showing what Tolkien describes and says.

I suppose what I'm attempting to say is that (well, I said it earlier), is that Tolkien and other classical writers had a lot to say in their fictional works in regards to the human condition and moral behavior. I, for one, have enjoyed the additional 'light and knowledge' you have shared.

When those insights are then placed next to comments that the LDS worldview is myopic, that's what I take issue with.

I do agree with you that they are "different" in some respects.

There does seem to be, to me, a pattern of 'lessening' the value of the belief system of the CofJCofLDS in order to 'increase' the value and/or importance of another system or twist on morality. Ergo, doing the same thing LDS missionaries are accused of doing.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

[Limnor]

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.

[Marcus]

...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...

It's almost like mentalgymnast has noticed that others see his projection, so he's decided to project even more. Anything to disrupt, anything for attention. It's what a troll does.

[Fence Sitter]

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.

Perhaps a more apt comparison to Mormon beliefs would be a game of chess where only the white side can win. If black wins, you've played it wrong.

[Gadianton]

I’m really trying to wrap my head around the HG confirmation vs the feeling that they were really in love with someone else. How does the “confirmation” part work?

Also, yes praying about the book was a part of my process, but I didn’t get any sort of burning or any other sort of feeling (aside from horror I suppose). But I do think answers were “revealed” to me, though those answers could just as easily be called historical study.

One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?

How does this play out? Same question as the one to Gad—how do they know it’s the HG?

I'm trying to put myself in your shoes to understand what you mean by these questions, as I feel like most of them have been addressed. You ask how the "confirmation" part works, but I've explained the Holy Ghost provides a "burning in the bosom", though perhaps I should add that although members will frame a witness with that phrase, as it's right out of the D&C, many will see it as metaphorical, and equate it with some kind of experience that seems related. However, I think I may see what you're getting at, and hopefully I can answer, but by the time I'm done, you may be ready to pick up your Book of Mormon and throw it at me, so brace yourself.

Perhaps you ask about reality rather than theory. So far in this thread, my answers are entirely theoretical. This is the doctrine. This is how Mormons view the matter, and I'm answering as if I'm a believing Mormon. Perhaps you mean: I can understand a Mormon being in love. I can understand a Mormon picking up an 8-ball and asking if he should get married, it says "no," becoming puzzled, but deferring to God's greater wisdom. I can understand a Mormon being in love, I can understand a Mormon pressing the little triangle window and the 8-ball randomly giving an answer that is taken as God's answer. But praying and receiving a burning in the bosom? How does that work mechanically -- compare it to how an 8-ball works in reality.

I have a rather strong opinion here, it's one I feel very confident in, however, my opinion is at odds with what most critics believe. Most critics believe that people fool themselves into feeling things or are fooled by their feelings; perhaps they work themselves into a weird mental state by excessive fasting or exhaustive focus. They point to psychology for insights into how mental and physical can affect each other. However, my psychological pursuit ignores the physical and focuses on the social. I see situations where somebody prays and then actually has an overpowering feeling afterward due to blood sugar or whatever, as outlier situations. I even think that apostates are so caught up with the idea that people are fooling themselves with their feelings, that claims of powerful witnesses are actually overrepresented in apostates, who then later claim to realize it was just their feelings, which gives them credibility as apostates. My belief is that nearly 100% of the time, the spiritual witness is a fabrication among both believers and apostates. A made up story. A fish story -- "you should have seen that guy fight like hell on the hook! It was a monster!" -- at the very best. Usually, however, just making it up whole cloth. There was no fish and there was no boat. And worse, I believe in general, members see it in themselves and others, and consciously participate in a community lie.

My skepticism cuts deep and could rival MG's beard fallacy, and so I must be careful. Consider the roommate who told me he was in love with girl A but God told him girl B via some kind of manifestation. I'm saying there was no manifestation, he's just saying that, and I knew better than to probe and take notes on the time of prayer and all possible mind-body responses. However, if he can lie so easily about his spiritual witness, couldn't he also lie about being in love? Absolutely. I don't believe he was in love with girl A, she was attractive, but obnoxious as hell. However, he certainly was attracted to her and there certainly was all the physiology that goes along with ordinary claims of love at play. In contrast, there were no "feelings" or lightning bolts that came after his prayer about girl B, if he even bothered to actually pray about it. In fact, to be totally fair, maybe I'm making up this story just to support my theory? That would certainly be in bounds for the kind of social contract I'm talking about.

Consider that Mormons aren't totally stupid, and they realize their feelings can get in the way and be misinterpreted, and many are obsessed with worry over whether their testimony is real or if they are just fooling themselves. Look at poor Morley. I was in the same boat. My dad would get up and testify about everything, God was constantly manifesting answers to him. My mom, however, kept quiet because she never felt like she'd received an answer that qualified. She didn't want to misrepresent something, though she felt deeply the church was true, and would be considered the most Mormon and spiritually pure person that many members would say they've ever met. The most brilliant insight I've read that explains the psychology here had to do with down zippers. If I'm standing in a group of polite friends, and my zipper is down, everyone notices but knows to ignore it. And this is a usual situation we've all been in. Consider the vulnerability of saying that you "know the church is true without a shadow of a doubt" as something like a down zipper. It's embarrassing. I told you the story of that gruff guy who testified about the devil confronting him in his basement. That was an outlier scenario, where audience members were left enraptured. But unless it's a general authority or a true confidence man, most of the time we're embarrassed for the speaker. We're thinking, "Oh crap, it's brother Johnson again getting up to bear testimony -- please please spare me Lord." Most people know they haven't been blown away by some esoteric experience and don't believe it for a second that others are getting answers so easily. But they do want to believe some people have them, they want to believe the experience can be real and that perhaps it will come for them. Did my mom believe my dad was constantly getting answers? Of course she couldn't believe such a thing. But, here's the rub -- lying -- fabricating -- for the Lord is a mark of loyalty. My dad bore testimony to her of the church so powerfully on a date that this sealed the deal for her accepting the marriage proposal. Did she believe that God really jolted him with such profound manifestations? She likely had her doubts, but it doesn't matter, because what mattered was his unwavering loyalty to the party line. Those who are shameless can easily go around with a down zipper, others would never dare. Others might calculate how to do it and make it cool.

To really drive all this home, I must stretch it out just a bit more. Recall my belief in first order and second order manifestations, and that second order are what members are almost always talking about. Consider that Mormons are fascinated by science and even see God as the greatest scientist of all. Many very good scientists and engineers are Mormon. Have they never considered that testimonies are just feelings that aren't trustworthy? Now consider that for a church where so much is viewed to ride of feelings, it isn't especially feeling oriented. Consider mega churches where folks get riled up and slain in the spirit, or speak in tongues. Consider old established churches with stunning architecture that evoke feelings of grandeur. Mormonism is bland and utilitarian. The temple ceremony is like a business meeting and dry and scripted with zero flair. Mormon culture doesn't do much to trigger physiological experiences in the members who are looking for a profound physical manifestation. Many Mormons even worry that their feelings can trick them, they want to be sure feelings come from the outside. You know the difference between getting punched in the gut and having a bad stomach cramp. In theory, the HG manifestation will be like getting punched in the gut; hard to be mistaken. But, because everyone knows that's so rare, they also talk about the "still small voice" or a lesser physical something kind of manifestation. It's almost like other members are trying to trick you into thinking you've already got a witness, lower the bar so you can step over it by accident. So how can you be certain the still small voice isn't coming from within? The gut punch, that's obvious, but the little voice? You don't want to be tricked into it. Members aren't trying to fool themselves into a testimony, they want the real thing.

Well, perhaps this drives the separation between the first and second order manifestation as I'm imagining them. In their scientific pragmatism, the second kind approximates a science experiment. It's an inductive method. study, pray, get answer. It's a formula. Even though they'll admit that feeling good or bad while reading something could be the spirit, they don't want to settle for that. What if the prose of the Book of Mormon was just so good that it caused me to feel uplifted? I can get that from any book. Praying about it, for a Mormon, has not evolved into an attempt to fool themselves emotionally, but to avoid fooling themselves emotionally. Okay, I read the book. Step away from it a minute and let me compose myself. Now I'm going to pray, and try to keep cool. I know that I probably won't get a lightning bolt, and so I've got to carefully tune that radio dial to catch the signal. I need to listen carefully and at the same time, avoid any kind of abrupt internal thoughts that could be misinterpreted as an outside signal. You can see how utterly crazy we Mormons can drive ourselves in pursuit of a testimony. But hopefully you can see why I think members who create elaborate rituals that end in a profound answer are really trying to create carefully controlled science experiments in order to get an answer that they know for sure is actually an answer. If they went without food, they will factor that in, and be even harder on themselves. It's not going to work, and so fabrication is really the only way forward. When you bear testimony, you don't need to go into the mechanics, you can, but you don't have to. You can just say you know it's true without a doubt and let the hearer fill in the blanks, which they will. Do they believe "that guy" really had the kind of experience we all know must occur in order to say those words? I was the in-between type. I bore testimony on a handful of occasions, more than my mom, but less in my entire life than my dad in a given week. Did I try to create controlled prayer experiments? Yes. Did I get answers? Nothing I felt was good enough. Was I lying? Sort of -- I tried to skirt the wording so that I wasn't lying. The type that walks around with my hand conveniently over my crotch so nobody can see if zipper up or down.

[Doctor Steuss]

Excellent points Dr. Steuss... So... here is how I would approach it, based on Tolkien's evolving thinking through time. He never did stop developing, changing, learning, and improving the world he created, which, betimes caused extra interesting contradictions to pop up which he would then address. His was never a completed project, but an adventure into the further unknown. He constantly revised the languages (which really ARE fun by the way!), the history, the chronology, and attempts to keep it real as a legendary world.

You put your finger on the issue that Tolkien's world shows the rise and fall of powers, how patterns repeat across ages, knowledge lost, and the general impermanence of things. Some destruction was followed with a partial renewal. Yet some things were entirely lost never to be brought back, like the two trees of light, the great Numenor, the fading the elves, etc. So, yeah, cycles exist, but so does forward moving. His repetition of patterns is not entirely like the Eastern or classic myth systems. Some things really are lost forever in Tolkien's world. The Silmarils are never recovered for instance. Many of the rings are destroyed, some of the Palantiri are destroyed and never rebuilt or used. So there is no eternal cycle that resets, but rather there is irreversible history where we can hear echoes, but there is no loop, as like Nietzsche's eternal return loop. So how does this effect Tolkien's ethics?

You are entirely correct to bring up the orcs, a subject Tolkien also thought through for decades since it bothered him greatly. Tolkien could have created a religion-like system with internal consistency. But the reason he didn’t is not lack of ambition, but it speaks more to ethical restraint. He refused prophetic authority, doctrinal finality, and moral closure. For him, he didn’t want people to obey Middle-earth. He wanted them to think inside it.

What I see in the various discussions of his Legendarium therefore is his ideas survive skeptical scrutiny since he remained open ended ethically. And yes, this disturbs some organized religions pretty badly! A fake prophet would have closed questions. Tolkien appears to me to have kept them open on purpose. And I don't see that as a failure on his part or laziness either. It's more in line, interestingly enough, with moral discipline. This brings us to the orcs. They aren't a hole in the system so much as an unresolved wound. And I don't see your point as naïve at all either. Tolkien himself struggled with this. I suggest, based on what we have of Tolkien's expositions that the Orcs were not morally unredeemable in principle. And, his struggling apparently prevented him from finding closure with this issue. Their existence is not a sweet spot in his ethics. His struggle can really be seen in his draft letter to Peter Hastings, a Catholic who was the manager of the Newman Bookshop in Oxford who had asked him if he had over-stepped his ethical and moral bounds in his sub-creation. (In "The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien," 2nd revised and enlarged edition, (2023): pp. 281-291)

Later in life he resisted that Orcs were soulless and purely evil by nature which deserved death simply by existing. He worried deeply that this would violate his belief that evil cannot create life, and imply God created beings beyond redemption, which in turn, in men's minds would justify extermination as being acceptable and morally clean. His troubled soul never did fully solve all that. But that is part of his point as well. They are ethically troubling by design. As we look over the Orcs in the story they appear to be the visible cost of domination. They are the end-state of total corruption (interesting to compare with Gollum, no?!). Orcs were robbed of culture, of mercy and even choice actually. They are not evil choices made freely, they are victims of Morgoth's violence, twisted beyond repair. But Tolkien doesn't then let us off the hook easily here. All this doesn't make their deaths morally easy by any means. It makes it tragic. I don't see Tolkien's own struggle to come to grips with this as lazy so much as morally honest about the cost of evil. Some harms, once done, cannot be undone, and that disturbs us, exactly as it should! And this doesn't collapse Tolkien's ethics I don't think, because nowhere in the Legendarium does Tolkien celebrate the killing of Orcs as a moral good. It is regrettable and tragic within the story’s constraints. He doesn't ever frame it anywhere as righteous joy. And here we get an incredible instructive contrast to mull over.

Some theology systems declare entire groups morally worthless, which in their turns justifies in their minds violence as obedience, in order to erase the moral discomfort. Yet Tolkien does not shy away from keeping that discomfort alive and seen, and felt. Tolkien's world is scarred, not with holes in the plot, but with a reality of consequences of choices made, ethics twisted, and lives changed. Orcs actually, come to think of it (!), support Tolkien's moral seriousness. If it was shallow, Orcs would be easy to destroy and be seen as a cleansing. No questions would linger. We wouldn't have to deal with this nasty business. Yet, readers keep asking about them, and very properly so. Tolkien himself kept revising their origin since he never fully resolved their problem. I would propose this is a sign of ethical depth, not failure. He increasingly rejected the idea of irredeemable beings, but never found a clean narrative solution. That lingering discomfort feels intentional to me appearing, on deep thought, as a refusal to make domination’s victims morally easy. This, to me, shows too much ethics for easy answers. Tolkien didn’t close every moral loop because closing them would have meant lying about the cost of evil. And that’s exactly why his work keeps generating serious thought rather than collapsing into doctrine.

Thank you so much for taking the time to share these additional thoughts and insights.

I hope you and your loved ones had a wonderful (and safe) New Year, and holiday season.

[Limnor]

Once again I truly appreciate your patient explanation Gad. Everything that follows in this post reflects my processing what you’ve said in near-real time.

Gad said: I'm trying to put myself in your shoes to understand what you mean by these questions, as I feel like most of them have been addressed.

I’m kind of thick so apologize for missing the meaning that had been explained. I understand the idea of the “burning in the bosom,” but it was the “double feelings” that confused me—how could you “feel in love” but “feel like God said no” simultaneously? You sort of explain it as almost a form of “self-deception” but it isn’t really clear. Though maybe it isn’t clear everyone else either, including adherents.

Gad said: My belief is that nearly 100% of the time, the spiritual witness is a fabrication among both believers and apostates. A made up story. A fish story -- "you should have seen that guy fight like hell on the hook! It was a monster!" -- at the very best. Usually, however, just making it up whole cloth. There was no fish and there was no boat. And worse, I believe in general, members see it in themselves and others, and consciously participate in a community lie.

So the idea behind the missionary work is to convince others to believe and participate in the lie as well?

Gad said: However, if he can lie so easily about his spiritual witness, couldn't he also lie about being in love? Absolutely. I don't believe he was in love with girl A, she was attractive, but obnoxious as hell. However, he certainly was attracted to her and there certainly was all the physiology that goes along with ordinary claims of love at play. In contrast, there were no "feelings" or lightning bolts that came after his prayer about girl B, if he even bothered to actually pray about it. In fact, to be totally fair, maybe I'm making up this story just to support my theory? That would certainly be in bounds for the kind of social contract I'm talking about.

My mind is blown right now. Seriously. I believe what you are saying, but maybe it’s because I “want” to believe it. Just wow.

Gad wrote: You don't want to be tricked into it. Members aren't trying to fool themselves into a testimony, they want the real thing.

Fascinating.

Gad wrote: Praying about it, for a Mormon, has not evolved into an attempt to fool themselves emotionally, but to avoid fooling themselves emotionally.

Gad wrote: Did I get answers? Nothing I felt was good enough. Was I lying? Sort of -- I tried to skirt the wording so that I wasn't lying. The type that walks around with my hand conveniently over my crotch so nobody can see if zipper up or down.

This is very helpful and I appreciate the insights. It helps me to better understand the system.

I need to chew on this some more.