God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

It was a good idea to bring in Kierkegaard, so does Kierkegaard justify the OP title? I'd say yes, if K is right, God is definitely using crooked lines.

Limnor says it was a one-off situation that can't be generalized, but it's hard not to speculate on other kinds of related tests. For instance, what if an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry a 14-year-old girl?

I think this is a fair question, but I think it is dependent on what Kierkegaard is doing with Abraham. In Fear and Trembling, Abraham cannot appeal to precedent, cannot explain himself, cannot rely on institutional authority, and cannot reassure himself—or anyone else—that his action is part of a repeatable pattern. If it were repeatable, it would no longer be faith but a rule. Once an appeal to authority is made, the crooked line becomes a straightened principle. I think Kierkegaard would say if God used crooked lines, turning them into a repeatable method would destroy the model altogether.

So while I think it’s possible to try to invoke a “crooked line” model in Joseph’s case, it doesn’t really hold up under the same logic Kierkegaard applies to Abraham.

[I Have Questions]

It was a good idea to bring in Kierkegaard, so does Kierkegaard justify the OP title? I'd say yes, if K is right, God is definitely using crooked lines.

Limnor says it was a one-off situation that can't be generalized, but it's hard not to speculate on other kinds of related tests. For instance, what if an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry a 14-year-old girl?

I think this is a fair question, but I think it is dependent on what Kierkegaard is doing with Abraham. In Fear and Trembling, Abraham cannot appeal to precedent, cannot explain himself, cannot rely on institutional authority, and cannot reassure himself—or anyone else—that his action is part of a repeatable pattern. If it were repeatable, it would no longer be faith but a rule. Once an appeal to authority is made, the crooked line becomes a straightened principle. I think Kierkegaard would say if God used crooked lines, turning them into a repeatable method would destroy the model altogether.

So while I think it’s possible to try to invoke a “crooked line” model in Joseph’s case, it doesn’t really hold up under the same logic Kierkegaard applies to Abraham.

Perhaps the maxim “God can write straight with crooked lines” should be amended to be more accurate to the evidence available. Which would be “God can write straight with crooked lines, but often chooses not to.”

[Limnor]

Perhaps the maxim “God can write straight with crooked lines” should be amended to be more accurate to the evidence available. Which would be “God can write straight with crooked lines, but often chooses not to.”

This is good—that amendment would help clarify the problem that any action could be retroactively justified. Saying instead that God can write straight with crooked lines, but often chooses not to, would allow for the possibility that some crookedness really is just crookedness, rather than surreptitiously straightened by appeal to authority after the fact. Which is what has bothered me about this setup the entire time.

[Gadianton]

Understanding check: Gad, I think your earlier point was that once a person publicly portrays their faith as knowing, any remaining ambiguity must transfer to obedience, and straightening the line happens by yielding to authority, not by allowing ambiguity to remain viable, even if there are problems along the way. Close?

close enough: If you "know" the Book of Mormon is true, then by the process of deduction, your life simplifies to merely doing what the Mormon leaders say and the Celestial Kingdom is yours. Similarly, the fact that the story of Abraham is written in omniscient mode, where we, the audience, know that the angel really is an angel, and that Abraham knows its an angel, it's obvious per the narrative that the right choice is to do what the angel says.

[Limnor]

Understanding check: Gad, I think your earlier point was that once a person publicly portrays their faith as knowing, any remaining ambiguity must transfer to obedience, and straightening the line happens by yielding to authority, not by allowing ambiguity to remain viable, even if there are problems along the way. Close?

close enough: If you "know" the Book of Mormon is true, then by the process of deduction, your life simplifies to merely doing what the Mormon leaders say and the Celestial Kingdom is yours. Similarly, the fact that the story of Abraham is written in omniscient mode, where we, the audience, know that the angel really is an angel, and that Abraham knows its an angel, it's obvious per the narrative that the right choice is to do what the angel says.

I think I’m settling in an assessment here in my Mormon lessons—Is it fair to say that once something is framed as “known,” an adherent can release his or herself from responsibility to discern what is right and simply trust an authority figure for authorized guidance about how to act?

[I Have Questions]

Perhaps the maxim “God can write straight with crooked lines” should be amended to be more accurate to the evidence available. Which would be “God can write straight with crooked lines, but often chooses not to.”

This is good—that amendment would help clarify the problem that any action could be retroactively justified. Saying instead that God can write straight with crooked lines, but often chooses not to, would allow for the possibility that some crookedness really is just crookedness, rather than surreptitiously straightened by appeal to authority after the fact. Which is what has bothered me about this setup the entire time.

The problem MG has, is that the burden to explain where God was in those instances where crooked lines didn’t lead to straight writing, is on him. And it’s an integral part of the discussion.

[malkie]

close enough: If you "know" the Book of Mormon is true, then by the process of deduction, your life simplifies to merely doing what the Mormon leaders say and the Celestial Kingdom is yours. Similarly, the fact that the story of Abraham is written in omniscient mode, where we, the audience, know that the angel really is an angel, and that Abraham knows its an angel, it's obvious per the narrative that the right choice is to do what the angel says.

I think I’m settling in an assessment here in my Mormon lessons—Is it fair to say that once something is framed as “known,” an adherent can release his or herself from responsibility to discern what is right and simply trust an authority figure for authorized guidance about how to act?

I believe that's what some - including me - would refer to as outsourcing one's conscience. I sincerely doubt that that is a good thing, and (in light of other parts of this thread) see it as distinctly non-Tolkien.

[Gadianton]

What would be the tell tale signs that would differentiate between a God actually “writing straight with crooked lines”, and a religious believer randomly ascribing to God good things that are really down to luck, chance, coincidence and otherwise unplanned happenstance?

I think this is a fantastic question and pinpoints the main problem with crooked line theory. Does God account for the moral hazard of all those people who misinterpret the story? Even if we grant that the complexity and brilliance of the conundrum may carry the sophistication of a Rolex, and a brilliant mind like Kierkegaard's can tell the difference between the real thing and a fake. What about the average person? Because boy oh boy, does that story ever inspire the imagination of those out make the perfect fake.

[Marcus]

close enough: If you "know" the Book of Mormon is true, then by the process of deduction, your life simplifies to merely doing what the Mormon leaders say and the Celestial Kingdom is yours. Similarly, the fact that the story of Abraham is written in omniscient mode, where we, the audience, know that the angel really is an angel, and that Abraham knows its an angel, it's obvious per the narrative that the right choice is to do what the angel says.

I think I’m settling in an assessment here in my Mormon lessons—Is it fair to say that once something is framed as “known,” an adherent can release his or herself from responsibility to discern what is right and simply trust an authority figure for authorized guidance about how to act?

I have an anecdote for that, related to women in the lds church. When I (an adult female) was in my mid-college years, I was making an important decision about my future and -I can't remember which- either my father or my older brother disagreed and publicly stated their opinion in front of the family. I disagreed and stated my decision. To me, it was not a big deal, and I had been willing to hear their opinion, but my mother, a devout Mormon woman, did not feel the same. With tears in her eyes, she stated emphatically, "you will ALWAYS regret not listening to 'the priesthood.'"

To my mother, any male priesthood holder in the lds church qualifies as an authority figure, and all females should defer to their guidance.

To tie this in to something being framed as "known," in my Mormon family an opinion stated by a priesthood holder met the qualifications and the implication was clear that if a woman was led astray by a priesthood holder, it wasn't her fault, but disagreeing was. (Unless of course she dressed immodestly at any point pre-marriage and caused a good priesthood holder to have impure thoughts. I know, not totally consistent.)

This may seem like an extreme example, but I have yet to hear from a postmormon woman who has not experienced some version of this. Things have changed on the surface it seems, and women in the temple no longer openly covenant to obey their spouse while he covenants to obey god, but in my experience the underlying concept is still there.

[Gadianton]

I think I’m settling in an assessment here in my Mormon lessons—Is it fair to say that once something is framed as “known,” an adherent can release his or herself from responsibility to discern what is right and simply trust an authority figure for authorized guidance about how to act?

A very cautious "yes". Remember, Mormon doctrine is haphazard, and I'm doing my best to explain what I perceive as the unwritten rules. You must do whatever your leaders tell you -- so long as it falls within their stewardship and they are not exercising unrighteous dominion. You are invited to "get a testimony" or "confirmation" of whatever your leaders tell you to do. But like your coworker said, the answer can only be "yes", unless they are acting outside their stewardship or exercising unrighteous dominion. So how clear is that?

If my bishop tells me to pay 11% tithing, I can tell him to pound sand.

ETA:

To tie this in to something being framed as "known," in my Mormon family an opinion stated by a priesthood holder met the qualifications and the implication was clear that if a woman was led astray by a priesthood holder, it wasn't her fault, but disagreeing was.

A perfect example of how convoluted this is in practice. The bolded is an example of the kind of thing a lot of people believe, it wasn't this extreme in my house so I'm feeling a little intimidated given that I tend to pride myself on my strict Mormon upbringing. My Book of Mormon teacher said something similar, that if the prophet tells you to kill somebody, then do it, and you'll be blessed for it. Even if he's wrong.