God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

But I believe in the Jesus who sought out the one sheep out of the ninety and nine. So I would encourage you to return should it be viable. I would feel a loss to the forum if that becomes your decision.

Seconded

[Philo Sofee]

Shades has always been clear that moderators are to moderate as proxies of himself. If you don't like Canpakes moderation, your beef is with Shades.

That is fair. I do not believe that panny's moderation resembles Shades' in any way. Not, even, close. Which is another reason to remove me from the board. I value my friendship with Shades over my contribution or entertainment on this board. I damn sure don't want that twat panny creating an actual conflict. It is enough that he is a petulant damned nuisance on a forum.

All I see is you entirely ruining MG's thread. You have contributed exactly nothing to the OP subject with several posts, and made it so everyone is talking about you now. It's rude. Discuss the subject MG brought up.

[Whiskey]

That is fair. I do not believe that panny's moderation resembles Shades' in any way. Not, even, close. Which is another reason to remove me from the board. I value my friendship with Shades over my contribution or entertainment on this board. I damn sure don't want that twat panny creating an actual conflict. It is enough that he is a petulant damned nuisance on a forum.

All I see is you entirely ruining MG's thread. You have contributed exactly nothing to the OP subject with several posts, and made it so everyone is talking about you now. It's rude. Discuss the subject MG brought up.

Stop it, Philo. Save us the tears. Your fake concern for MG is funny though. Thanks for that. If you have a real issue and not the pretend kind, reach out to Xeno. Thanks.

[Whiskey]

But I believe in the Jesus who sought out the one sheep out of the ninety and nine. So I would encourage you to return should it be viable. I would feel a loss to the forum if that becomes your decision.

Seconded

Appreciated. Let's get together and cook cool stuff on a Blackstone cast iron grill.

[Limnor]

Seconded

Appreciated. Let's get together and cook cool stuff on a Blackstone cast iron grill.

Naw I’m serious—I do think you are very clever and funny, and very often hit truth squarely on the head.

[Philo Sofee]

Mercy and pity are part of how the world is built, but they never remove responsibility or turn goodness into simple obedience.

That’s why I’m hesitant to compare this to the LDS idea of the Light of Christ. In Tolkien, providence does not work like an inner compass that reliably points to the right choice, and it does not act as a system of divine supervision. It gives meaning in the background, but it does not instruct, control, or excuse actions. Moral clarity still has to be carried by imperfect people, making real choices, without guarantees.

I’m interested in this as well and want to better understand the LDS thinking of the “Light of Christ.” I think I see the distinction you’re drawing, but want to check my understanding. I think you are saying that In Tolkien, providence supplies meaning but not guidance—it doesn’t operate as an inner compass or a form of supervision, and it can’t be used to resolve moral ambiguity after the fact. This resonated with me. What I don’t understand is the LDS thought—it seems that responsibility is important in principle, but there is an internal moral light that reliably points toward the right choice? If that’s the case, the risk is smoothing the uncertainty Tolkien describes as one we have to carry.

OK, lets re-assess what is happening here because I do believe you are grasping it very well. You said “the risk is smoothing the uncertainty Tolkien describes as one we have to carry” youo are making a very sharp observation indeed. So far as I can tell in my investigation of Tolkien he insists on seeing uncertainty that cannot be resolved in advance and this is coupled with the idea that responsibility cannot be outsourced (say to an outside source called "The Light of Christ"). And to further show how open Tolkien is, he never says doing goodness means a guarantee in outcomes of goodness either.

The upshot of all this is that a system which supplies an inner light that reliably points to the correct action, then the problem arises that tragedy becomes a misread signal. Worse still, if someone fails it is turned against the person as error on their part. So what appears contradictory or ambiguous becomes just temporary noise that perhaps prayer can solve Tolkien doesn't allow any of this. He preserves something more fragile and rare. That one has moral responsibility regardless of any guarantee. It means doing the right thing even when you don’t know how it will turn out.

Tolkien says you don't get a promise it will work and certainly not a sign from above, or even within. There is also no guarantee that you'll be rewarded either. And what if it fails whatever you choose to do? Do you get to undo the damage if what you do fails? Not necessarily, since that is not promised either. And yet, you still have to choose. Tolkien's example of Frodo is quite beautiful to illustrate this. Frodo has no idea if the Ring even can be destroyed. No one guarantees he is even going to survive actually. He knows the task is damn near impossible yet he doesn't even know if his suffering is even going to matter at all. No one promises him success. He goes anyway. HE GOES ANYWAY, because none of the others in the Fellowship can do it, so he VOLUNTEERS with absolutely no assurances of any kind, any where. The really crazy part here is He FAILS anyway! Good God let that sink in! HE FAILS. Yet Tolkien still says Frodo did what he was morally able to do. His responsibility was faithfulness, not success. That's moral responsibility without guarantees.

To see a simple example from real life how about you see someone being treated unfairly at school or work. You can speak up but... it might not fix anything and worse still it might make things worse, and you might either get blamed and/or ignored. There is just no guarantee doing the right thing will "pay off." Even if nothing comes of it to resolve it that is not the issue. But choosing to speak up anyway is still morally meaningful. Because in Tolkien's world, doing good doesn’t always win, any more than being right doesn’t protect you. Even failure doesn’t erase responsibility. So what's the point? Goodness matters because it’s chosen, not because it succeeds. This shows its power when we look at how other systems do this morality thing. Some say “Do the right thing and things will work out.” Tolkien would say “Do the right thing even if they don’t.”

[Rivendale]

The same way Dan said that there can be no valid criticism of the LDS church.

O.K., before I play my cards, I sincerely have to ask you to verify that this really is Dan Peterson saying this. I KNOW it isn't Dan McClellan, so I am assuming it's Dan Peterson. But I just want to make sure it really is something he actually did say. Thank you.

Estel. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpet ... rch.html

[Gadianton]

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.

Candle of the Lord is a classic, and glad you brought it up. Packer like Holland was smart, and devious. I was one of those who was given the talk by a bishop when I brought up my concerns. Probably the only time I brought them up. This talk has definitely influenced my views, though not so much as Daniel Dennett. I'm not a huge Dennett fan, but, his arguments about constructing feelings post-hoc seemed a dead hit for the testimony. I mean, if there is any time this sort of thing is done. People don't have spiritual experiences, they construct them after the fact to meet social expectations -- that was my starting point.

I would bet everything I have Packer himself was performing, and never had an "experience". I think testimony is near entirely performative, it's a forced issue. Hold that thought though, in practice it's tricky. See, if people were just allowed to express their feelings, that's another matter. If I can get up and say "I really believe it" not "I know it's true", then sincerity could come rushing back into the situation. Lots of members sincerely believe it. I don't think the leaders have insisted a testimony be so rigid, I think it's an evolved cultural expectation by the members themselves. The members are obsessed with "knowing".

I'll indulge myself with my testimony meeting breakdown. I have not been to such a meeting in at least 20 years so I can't guarantee things haven't changed, but something tells me...

In a testimony meeting, 30% of the testimonies are what members call "travel logs" where no testimony is given, people just talk about their recent life experiences. They aren't supposed to do this, but it's an evolved tradition. These folks usually approach the mic first. They are older people, sick people, or poor or mentally unstable, and go way off script venting about their problems in life. Sometimes they bring it back to God. Often, these people are regular bearers, and so they are subconsciously given the curtesy of going first. The next group to come forward after the regulars, is likely children who blast the mic while mom whispers to them what to say. Both of these groups so far are totally sincere.

The next group, which could also be represented in the first group, are the cluster A's. The folks a bit nuts that have crazy experiences and may not actually "bear testimony" like they are supposed to. Maybe they will. After they are done, 50-70% of the testimonies have completed, we have lots of sincerity, but no real testimony.

Those who hold off and wait for the later half of the meeting are either the cluster B's, the sociopaths and narcissists, or the regular stable adults giving others a chance to go first, and who are sweating, feeling guilty that they should get up, but scared because they aren't confident enough to say, "I know". These make up 20%, and know the script. They say, "I know" and perhaps cite relevant appropriate experiences, will go on about their loyalty to church leadership. These are the core, stable members. And it's entirely performative. If there's lots of time left in the meeting, someone from the bishopric will get up and set the example. these are also performative -- hey, they got to show others how to do it.

[Limnor]

To see a simple example from real life how about you see someone being treated unfairly at school or work. You can speak up but... it might not fix anything and worse still it might make things worse, and you might either get blamed and/or ignored. There is just no guarantee doing the right thing will "pay off." Even if nothing comes of it to resolve it that is not the issue. But choosing to speak up anyway is still morally meaningful. Because in Tolkien's world, doing good doesn’t always win, any more than being right doesn’t protect you. Even failure doesn’t erase responsibility. So what's the point? Goodness matters because it’s chosen, not because it succeeds. This shows its power when we look at how other systems do this morality thing. Some say “Do the right thing and things will work out.” Tolkien would say “Do the right thing even if they don’t.”

There is a hint of Ecclesiastes here.

Also, on another thread we had discussed the finality of death and its “real” consequence, not just a stepping stone as (loosely translated by me) in Platonic thought and Mormon concepts of the soul.

We talked about the Apostle Paul’s description of victory over death as only mattering because death is real. Tolkien seems to keeps that weight, though not in the exact register—there is real loss however. Once resurrection becomes a way to diminish loss in advance, death stops being an enemy and starts being an inconvenience.

How does Tolkien treat death and resurrection? I’ve wondered about Gandalf’s death and if it aligned to Tolkien’s understanding—do you have any insight into this?

[Philo Sofee]

To see a simple example from real life how about you see someone being treated unfairly at school or work. You can speak up but... it might not fix anything and worse still it might make things worse, and you might either get blamed and/or ignored. There is just no guarantee doing the right thing will "pay off." Even if nothing comes of it to resolve it that is not the issue. But choosing to speak up anyway is still morally meaningful. Because in Tolkien's world, doing good doesn’t always win, any more than being right doesn’t protect you. Even failure doesn’t erase responsibility. So what's the point? Goodness matters because it’s chosen, not because it succeeds. This shows its power when we look at how other systems do this morality thing. Some say “Do the right thing and things will work out.” Tolkien would say “Do the right thing even if they don’t.”

There is a hint of Ecclesiastes here.

Also, on another thread we had discussed the finality of death and its “real” consequence, not just a stepping stone as (loosely translated by me) in Platonic thought and Mormon concepts of the soul.

We talked about the Apostle Paul’s description of victory over death as only mattering because death is real. Tolkien seems to keeps that weight, though not in the exact register—there is real loss however. Once resurrection becomes a way to diminish loss in advance, death stops being an enemy and starts being an inconvenience.

How does Tolkien treat death and resurrection? I’ve wondered about Gandalf’s death and if it aligned to Tolkien’s understanding—do you have any insight into this?

This is a really good question too, and you are picking up on something Tolkien was very careful about.

There actually is a hint of Ecclesiastes in Tolkien’s thinking I think. Death matters because it is real. Loss matters because it actually costs something. If death were only a temporary inconvenience, then courage, grief, and sacrifice would lose their weight. Tolkien keeps that weight. Even in a world where hope exists beyond death, death is still an enemy, not a trick door.

i think that’s where Tolkien quietly lines up with Apostle Paul. Paul says death is the last enemy, not an illusion, not a lesson, but an enemy that truly wounds. Victory only matters because death first hurts. Tolkien agrees. Middle-earth is not a place where resurrection cancels sorrow in advance. Loss is not explained away. It is endured. I think the movie where the Hobbits climb the staircase and finally get to Mount Doom shows there is no glory, no pleasure, nothing good to look forward to, it is pure misery and endurance they are going through to get that stupid ring to Mount Doom.

Soooooo, on Gandalf we have something a bit out of the ordinary for Middle-earth actually. Gandalf’s return is not a general model for death in Tolkien’s world. It’s exceptional. Gandalf doesn’t “power up,” and he doesn’t come back unchanged. He passes through death at great cost, and his return is a kind of grace, not a rule. Most deaths in Tolkien stay final within the story. Boromir doesn’t return. Théoden doesn’t return. Even the Elves fade.

So Tolkien’s answer, I think, is this. Resurrection doesn’t erase death’s seriousness. It doesn’t make loss smaller ahead of time. It only means that faithfulness was not wasted. Good is chosen without guarantees. Death still costs. And that’s exactly why courage, mercy, and sacrifice mean anything at all. And actually there are some cases for reincarnation instead of resurrection as well, as with Glorfindle. Probably not the answer anyone wants, but I shall look deeper into it as I have time. For now that, that seems about right.