God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

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.

But here's the thing. Spiritual experiences of each person which may lead to a testimony is often a "crooked line" filled with personal struggle and doubt before reaching a "straight" conclusion. Children and a certain number (who knows?) of others excepted. But even then, those folks may be literally on that crooked line with hopes of reaching a straight line conclusion or testimony. As God works in and through the experiences of individuals exercising agency there are obviously going to be some crooked lines along the way. It is always a work in process as God, "Makes His paths straight" in the work of bringing to pass the salvation/exaltation of His children. It's definitely not a straight line...for us.

See Hebrews 12:13; Isaiah 40:3; Acts 13:10

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.

"Knowing" the Book of Mormon is true does not automatically remove the need for continued faith or "crooked" wrestling with other complex doctrines or history. And as I alluded to above, "knowing" is open for introspective consideration as to what that might mean from one individual to the next. And it will be along a spectrum line of knowing. All "knowing" may not be qualitatively the same. There will be some 'crookedness' involved that may over time be straightened out through continued obedience, prayer, fasting, service, etc.

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).

We might consider that the crookedness or ambiguity (interesting how the two go together at times) created an ethical paradox in regard to the command that was given. It may have been essential to the test and was never completely 'ironed out' until the straight line of obedience was 'chosen' by Abraham. As we consider the Sorites Paradox we can see that Abraham (we may not know the whole story, only what is written) has to place grain by grain of sand to the pile of faith/obedience/knowledge before God was able to confer upon him the title of Father of All Nations. My guess is it wasn't just a fluke.

Abraham was prepared and worthy.

But once it's understood trusting whatever the Lord or his authorities says is the answer, then there is no more ambiguity.

There may be a sliding scale there. Folks are still going to have their own struggles and thoughts. Ambiguity and a certain amount of 'positive knowledge/faith' can be enough to keep someone on the straight path even with one's own twists and turns following their own crooked path.

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.

It's a process, to be sure. The Sorites Paradox applies to the development of faith, one small spiritual insight (a grain) doesn't make a testimony (a heap), but over time, God uses these disparate, "crooked" grains to build a "straight" foundation of belief.

A brief respite in a thread that has been thoroughly derailed. Thanks for that.

Regards,
MG

Hey gadianton, I have covered at least a couple of the concerns you folks have brought up since I made this post. The points/arguments I've made have not been responded to directly.

Just some more 'stirring the mud around'.

God writing straight with crooked lines causes some moral dilemmas and conundrums for critics and unbelievers, more so than for believers I think. I'm fairly comfortable with it personally. Sorites Paradox (referred to in my recent post) also. I think God is a LOT bigger than folks want to think of Him as being. After all, if He created (brought together matter and intelligence) the 'baby' universe and all things that are in it, I think that He's got the whole world in His hands. Yep, I loved that song when I first came in contact with it.

There are times when I get the feeling some folks are talking around me rather than taking things seriously. Here and there, a nibble, but then...off somewhere else. Tolkien, for example. Not that I have anything against Tolkien and conversations surrounding his moral philosophy that then shows up in his writing, but it was a big giant sidetrack from the main thrust of the thread.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I'm not going to respond to certain poster's pseudo psychology, criticisms, etc. It doesn't keep the topic on track.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

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.

Marcus, I find your experience of having your personal decision undermined in such a way shocking, Seriously shocking. It is alien to any of my experience. That may be in part a result of my being male. It would also be i part that my family never was that sort of rigid believers. My memory starts saying that I recognize the shape of what you describe
I respect your anger in rejecting that system. Or perhaps unyielding determination is clearer than anger.

This has caused me to reflect that this difference in experience may be why I ignore aspects of MG posting which you find difficult to impossible to ignore. I cannot say you are wrong in refusing to ignore these.

[Limnor]

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.

What’s interesting to me is that much of what we’re describing is probably considered a feature rather than a bug for adherents. From inside the system, I suppose there is some comfort in shifting uncertainty upchain because it can simplify things. The problem is what it costs in terms of personal moral agency.

I’ve been thinking about this through the lens of a military commission. When an action is properly commissioned, we still have to be careful that the individual isn’t released from personal discernment. The challenge isn’t that people stop caring about right and wrong, but that there is a risk of people releasing themselves from accountability for their actions because they believe they can push responsibility upward to decision-makers. We deliberately try to prevent that by training members that authority does not relieve a person of the obligation to act according to conscience.

[Limnor]

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.

This really solidifies the assessment and helps explain the logic we’ve been discussing. When obedience overrides conscience, in the military you end up with things like My Lai, and the MMM in Mormonism.

[Limnor]

I'm not going to respond to certain poster's pseudo psychology, criticisms, etc. It doesn't keep the topic on track.

Regards,
MG

Why, MG, I had quite forgotten you were here.

[Limnor]

There are times when I get the feeling some folks are talking around me rather than taking things seriously.

Solid assessment, sir.

[Limnor]

Gad, a few pages back you had said the below, and I agree with you.

I think he might be feeling left out, but I think there might be a way to continue to include him and make the thread align to MG.

I’m still interested in the bolded part below.

Gad wrote: A lot of this should be split off, we're ruining MG's thread, and I give MG props for starting a good thread that should be respected. I also do have a few points to defend MG coming up but I'm finishing off my bottle of Wild Turkey and getting blind sided by Whiskey at the same time. (?!)

Limnor wrote: Yeah I think a lot of this exchange could be split as well but I appreciate everyone’s input into my hijack.

I think a takeaway is that even thoughts or insights that arise in your own mind are not yours in authorship.

I’m interested in hearing your defense of MG—a while ago you said something along the lines of “it’s not his fault,” and that sat with me, so I’d be interested to hear more.

On further thought, maybe this thread does satisfy the question.

[Gadianton]

The points/arguments I've made have not been responded to directly.

I apologize I wasn't immediately able to get to them. I received a phone call from a relative and the discussion involved some perplexing medical problems other family members are dealing with. I figured that their lives were more important than this thread.

But here's the thing. Spiritual experiences of each person which may lead to a testimony is often a "crooked line" filled with personal struggle and doubt before reaching a "straight" conclusion.

"Knowing" the Book of Mormon is true does not automatically remove the need for continued faith or "crooked" wrestling with other complex doctrines or history.

You're putting my explanatory powers to the test here. Read superficially, I totally agree with you. Life is super messy, in reality. You have no argument from me that many people are going struggle like crazy after claiming to have a testimony. Have you read the talk by Bruce C. Hafen called "Dealing with Uncertainty?" If not, I suggest it for your Sunday scripture reading, just because I think you'll like it.

"Knowing" the Book of Mormon is true absolutely should remove the need for wrestling with complex doctrines. Take an extreme example. Suppose I pray about the Book of Mormon and like Joseph Smith, God the Father and the Son visit me, and in a vision they show me the whole of Nephite history along with how everything worked out that resulted in the Book of Mormon as it is today. I'm left actually "really knowing it's true" as much as a person can know anything. Guess what? From that day forward, complex doctrines and history, meh. No struggle. I just accept all of it and figure once I'm dead, I'll get the equivalent explanation for all the other stuff. I'll be in church every Sunday doing whatever the Bishop says, doesn't matter if I don't like him, all of these concerns pale in comparison to what I know is waiting for me. The reason why "knowing the Book of Mormon is true does not automatically remove...." is because you don't really know it's true, you're just saying it is. At best you really want to believe it. At worst, you secretly doubt it.

It may have been essential to the test and was never completely 'ironed out' until the straight line of obedience was 'chosen' by Abraham

Sure, it may have been. But maybe Ron Lafferty also needed to be tested in the way he claimed? There is no end to how grifters can mimic the same logic.

[MG 2.0]

Interesting series of three posts, Limnor. They confirm the answers to questions that I’ve been asking. I suppose at this point we’re on equal ground in that respect. Or not?

When Gadianton has the time I’m sure he will respond to my recent post. It was he who brought up testimonies, etc. It is I who responded. No, I don’t feel left out.

That might help you with your question(s). Sometimes when we hit a dead end we may respond in various ways. I don’t believe I’ve reached a dead end.

Do you? Honest question.

Regards,
MG