God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

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).

Lest this go unnoticed by me, I wanted to say thank you for the input, Marcus.

[malkie]

I, for one, am greatly pleased that you've stayed and participated (and how!) for so long this time around. I don't think I really appreciated your previous personas.

I appreciate that, truly. I think you’re probably right that earlier versions of me were more guarded—and maybe more performative than I realized at the time. My first iteration was at Beliefnet in the 1999 timeframe—moksha posted there even way back then.

Back then I felt like I had to defend a position rather than explore a question, and scripture-only engagement was both exhausting and even constricting, I wasn’t really being myself even though my approach was sincere. Maybe there is an equivalence there worth exploring—maybe any revealed religion results in self-pressure to spread the word without having the self-awareness to realize how heavy-handed that approach can appear.

Over the years I’ve grown less convinced that people can be argued into faith. If anything, I’m more persuaded that whatever “drawing to Christ” happens is not something anyone can produce—the biblical model is that Jesus calls His own. What remains for me is a kind of responsibility to speak honestly about how I understand Jesus as I encounter him in the text, without trying to stand between anyone else and God in the process.

That’s probably why this iteration feels different. For the previous two iterations here at DM after having decided not to post at Beliefnet anymore, I had decided not to evangelize at all—keeping my own faith system to myself and learn as much as I could about the LDS faith and the Book of Mormon. There is a certain feeling of being held to an impossible standard while sharing—I think you have indicated something similar when you said you didn’t want to break any rules. I still feel that way occasionally but I also realize the rules are generally arbitrary and no one has authority over me anyway. It’s been particularly fun to dismiss that feeling and play with the false sense of authority that seems to sometimes rear its head. It was during those two previous iterations that I seriously developed my theory but had never fully completed it. I still haven’t committed it all to paper but have a fairly extensive sketch drawn out.

This iteration seems to have brought it all together—I’m less interested in “winning,” and more interested in clarity; clarity of what I believe but mostly only if asked, clarity in my theory and understanding of the Book of Mormon and Mormon thought, and understanding more fully the personal application of Mormon faith and its effects on its adherents.

It’s been good to explore that in this iteration, without feeling like every thought has to be a perfect. So thank you—for the welcome, and for the patience with the evolution—and with the length of this exposition…

Sounds to me like you live a well-examined life, and it brings you as much contentment (not sure if that's what I really mean, but it will do for now) as you allow it to.

My comment about the rules was specific to the thread at the point it was at. Whether it was intended or not, I took MG's reminder about the rules to be an indication that I had broken his express rules when I jumped into the topic. I had no wish to antagonise him, so I stopped commenting. However, since the thread has gone in several unruly directions since then, I haven't felt the need to exercise the same degree of restraint.

[Limnor]

Sounds to me like you live a well-examined life, and it brings you as much contentment (not sure if that's what I really mean, but it will do for now) as you allow it to.

My comment about the rules was specific to the thread at the point it was at. Whether it was intended or not, I took MG's reminder about the rules to be an indication that I had broken his express rules when I jumped into the topic. I had no wish to antagonise him, so I stopped commenting. However, since the thread has gone in several unruly directions since then, I haven't felt the need to exercise the same degree of restraint.

I appreciate that—and I think I understand what you’re getting at, even if “contentment” isn’t quite the right word. It’s probably closer to knowing who I am and being at peace with “me.” Maybe it is the same thing lol. Your explanation about the rules makes sense to me.

[I Have Questions]

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.

That breakdown of Fast & Testimony participants resonates with my observations. Within the latter participants I think there are two things going on. First they are signalling that they are part of the inner group. The core of the ward. They are exerting righteousness “status”. They promote the idea that they have had better spiritual experiences than most in order to convey their superiority. Those are your cluster B’s. In some others I see a displayed insecurity. A need to continually “find” their testimony by bearing it. There’s a desperation in their feigned vehemence when saying “I KNOW the Church is true”.

[Gadianton]

Just to be clear, as I tend to make up my own terminology, by Cluster A and Cluster B I'm literally referring to psychiatric disorders. I think the schizotypal ward members will tend to rush the microphone and bear testimony first, and the sociopaths will hold out and bide their time. In context, one of the most extreme testimony bearers from my time, was a sociopath who ran a Ponzi scheme and went to prison. He was "core member" material, with a young family, good income (cough), and a good communicator. He only bore testimony occasionally, but he bore "powerful" testimonies that assured his knowledge that everything was true, his vast knowledge of the Savior's love that he himself comes close to experiencing, and his allegiance to the brethren and his priesthood leaders. The performance of the century that painted within the lines. His only problem (aside from running a Ponzi scheme) was behind the scenes, he was too aggressive in promoting himself for leadership positions. For the performers, it's quite a balancing act to message one's utter devotion to the party while secretly trying to rise in power and thwart those above you in the party. But the performers are the inevitable party leaders.

[Limnor]

Just to be clear, as I tend to make up my own terminology, by Cluster A and Cluster B I'm literally referring to psychiatric disorders. I think the schizotypal ward members will tend to rush the microphone and bear testimony first, and the sociopaths will hold out and bide their time. In context, one of the most extreme testimony bearers from my time, was a sociopath who ran a Ponzi scheme and went to prison. He was "core member" material, with a young family, good income (cough), and a good communicator. He only bore testimony occasionally, but he bore "powerful" testimonies that assured his knowledge that everything was true, his vast knowledge of the Savior's love that he himself comes close to experiencing, and his allegiance to the brethren and his priesthood leaders. The performance of the century that painted within the lines. His only problem (aside from running a Ponzi scheme) was behind the scenes, he was too aggressive in promoting himself for leadership positions. For the performers, it's quite a balancing act to message one's utter devotion to the party while secretly trying to rise in power and thwart those above you in the party. But the performers are the inevitable party leaders.

I looked up the clusters after you first mentioned them. Reading your description above, I thought of how closely it resembles the story of John C. Bennett.

Bennett is not an outlier—he probably better reflects an early example of the recurring type you’re talking about. I think he initially gained trust through performance of alignment to Joseph, but eventually “weaponized” that alignment to satisfy his ambition. I think your line “performers are the inevitable party leaders” comfortably fits Bennett.

I wouldn’t want to frame it too neatly as “Bennett = bad” or “testimony bearers are psychopaths,” but I’d be comfortable saying certain personalities excel in systems that reward loyalty signaling and discretion.

Applying this to Book of Mormon composition, I see a relationship between early LDS power dynamics and a previous pattern as captured in the book.

[Limnor]

Gad wrote: 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".

This is interesting, and a little sad actually, because there seems to be a very subtle switch happening here, from a genuine sincerity to a forced sincerity.

I’ve wondered if this practice traces itself back to the Book of Mormon itself—through its emphasis on “knowing” as an ideal outcome of faith.

[Gadianton]

Question for MG: How does the testimony factor into a world where God writes straight with crooked lines?

To me, the testimony is the perfect example of why the Church teaches that God writes straight with straight lines.

The missionaries follow a formula. If you pray about the Book of Mormon and find out it's true, that implies Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If Joseph was a true prophet, the church is true. If the church is true, then all the commandments like tithing are also true. So as soon as you admit you KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, all the dominoes logically fall from there.

Consider the Abrahamic test. The law says, "thou shalt not kill". But then an angel appears and says, "kill your son". The Abrahamic test seems like the perfect example of God using crooked lines. And I agree it's theoretically possible and likely the best if not only example of it. (I'm open to other suggestions). But once it's understood trusting whatever the Lord or his authorities says is the answer, then there is no more ambiguity. Either the crookedness has disappeared outright (DCT - voluntarism) or we still see the crookedness, but know on God's authority they are really straight (Intellectualism non-voluntarism).

If all you have to know is "follow the prophet" then God is writing with straight lines, even if you are unable to personally confirm the line geometry.

[Philo Sofee]

Gadianton:
If all you have to know is "follow the prophet" then God is writing with straight lines, even if you are unable to personally confirm the line geometry.

Excellent point! And I guarantee we all were thoroughly, non-stop indoctrinated on this most important theme in our youths and later decades. That is irrefutably one of the singular most emphasized doctrines in all Mormonism. The evidence is mind-bogglingly overwhelming of it. The current leader, Dallin Oaks is one who re-upped it with his line "When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done." That is arrow line straight.

[Limnor]

Consider the Abrahamic test. The law says, "thou shalt not kill". But then an angel appears and says, "kill your son". The Abrahamic test seems like the perfect example of God using crooked lines. And I agree it's theoretically possible and likely the best if not only example of it. (I'm open to other suggestions). But once it's understood trusting whatever the Lord or his authorities says is the answer, then there is no more ambiguity.

The appeal to the Abrahamic test is helpful, and I appreciate that it was posed as a genuine question to MG rather than a settled claim.

I think, while we wait on MG’s reply, there may be room for additional exploration here. I’ve personally been challenged in my own thinking about the Abraham story—mostly from members on this board. And I appreciate the challenge.

For me—in my own mind—there has been what I think is an undercurrent of “Abraham’s actions must be justified.” But maybe there is something about the story and the lack of justification for his action that is meaningful.

Earlier we had discussed Kierkegaard’s view, and this morning I discovered that Kierkegaard had written specifically about Abraham in Fear and Trembling. Kierkegaard’s view is that Abraham’s action is intentionally non-transferable. He cannot and does not explain himself, and outside of trusting God’s promise that Abraham would become the father of many through Isaac, his specific action doesn’t serve as a model for believers, rather his trust in God is the model—God would provide the sacrifice and living offering, through bringing his son back from the dead if necessary.

By contrast, the Book of Mormon’s Nephi/Laban episode appears to do the opposite. Nephi explains his action and justifies it as authorized by God, which turns an exception of moral and ethical behavior into a model to follow. It was ok to do what he did because it fulfilled a higher command.

That difference matters for the “crooked lines” idea: Abraham preserves ambiguity and fear, while Nephi resolves ambiguity through authorized explanation. If Abraham is meant as the paradigm, the question becomes whether later examples are preserving that unresolved ambiguity and fear, or replacing it with certainty when authority is invoked.

So the question I’m left with is this: Is Abraham meant to be a singular, unrepeatable crisis of faith—or a standing model for how moral uncertainty should be resolved when divine authority speaks?