God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

Gadianton answered right when I sent my post to you, Limnor. I will now read his response and return when I can.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

Bruce Hafen was a SP at one of the BYU stakes when I was there. It may have been the one I was in, not sure. Yep, you made the right choice on helping someone in need. Obviously.

To be honest, however, I find your post wanting. Using a blanket example in regards to a Book of Mormon witness and making a cross application to supposedly cover all the bases doesn’t do it for me. Very little response on the rest of my post which I felt brought up some interesting, maybe even important, points to consider a bit more deeply than basically not at all.

I understand though that sometimes we get cramped for time and there are other things going on.

I feel like some of my posts are worth a bit more exploration than they get sometimes. But whatever.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

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

I’ll be clear about my intent here, because I think there may be a misunderstanding about my approach and why I’m engaging here.

I’m not looking for a “gotcha,” nor am I trying to prove you wrong or argue for argument’s sake. From the beginning, I’ve said that I don’t care what you believe in the sense that I’m not trying to persuade you to change it—you’re free to believe whatever you choose. I also don’t expect any single person to answer every question clearly. Others in the thread have shared perspectives and information that I’ve found genuinely helpful, and I’m engaging here to better understand, not to extract a particular response from you. To be very frank, I don’t expect you to respond with clarity, as you appear to be either incapable or unwilling to honestly share, but others have provided a lot of information that I am grateful for.

What I’m trying to do is understand how Mormonism’s internal logic works—especially around testimony, authority, and moral responsibility. I care about people who have been hurt in religious contexts, and those concerns shape why these discussions matter to me. I’ve tried to communicate that repeatedly, and when it feels like that’s not being heard, it can come across as dismissive or disrespectful, even if that’s not the intention.

I’ll own that my patience wears thin when I feel like my approach and comments are met with what looks to me like goalpost shifting or hand-waving rather than engagement. When that happens, I probably become less tolerant than I should, not because I’m hostile to the faith, but because I’m trying to have an actual discussion. My intolerance comes out as satire and parody—those posts shouldn’t be seen as a dodge or a dismissal, but as a way to expose assumptions and clarify where I think logic becomes strained.

[huckelberry]

MG,stated that he thought folks were talking around the question he thought was central. I thought the question confused by not being clear as to what sort of writing is in question. I think of the question in terms Paul's proposal that for those who love God all things work together for good. That hardly means no bad things happen but God brings events to a good end for those who love God.

I do not think God sending messages to establish authority is in view at all. I do think God inspires but expects people to use their heart and mind to understand decide and make rules. Humans error so there are crooked paths written by people. This would be true for important Christian leaders like the Pope or minor leaders like the minister down the street.

[Gadianton]

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.

Yeah, the thread "blew up" yesterday and left some loose ends. Did you see my post updating the model of the two kinds of spiritual manifestation? I updated it to muse vs. magic 8-ball. I'm very happy with that after sleeping on it.

I actually found the post in question.

I may be misreading you, MG, but it feels like you want to make your framework the default standard—so if Tolkien doesn’t line up with it, the question, from that view, becomes whether Tolkien is incomplete or mistaken.

I’d hesitant to evaluate Tolkien by criteria he’s not using. Judging him through your predetermined framework may miss what he’s actually trying to show.

The problem you point out I believe is accurate. And I feel the same way that MG is sneaking in Mormon concepts all the time but trying to change the terminology so it looks like some general principle. Like nearly quoting the letter to Nancy Rigdon when asking about the possibility of situational ethics.

I have a degree of empathy here. I'm fortunate that I had a good relationship with my family but if I were to have encountered my dad online, it wouldn't have been good. He was one of these people who was so thoroughly inducted into Mormon culture, that it was fundamentally embedded into the way he processed the world. Some people compartmentalize, but others don't need to. Everything made sense in terms of the church for him. For example, if he were to read a science article, the only way he could conceptualize what it's saying is by relating it to what he knew from church. Learning anything new that he found interesting resulted in excitement because it was just one more thing that Joseph Smith already knew about and confirmed the church and he'd laugh at these scientist just barely figuring that out now. If something new didn't ring a bell for him, he'd dismiss it saying something like, we know that isn't right because Joseph Smith said... It took some getting past, but we otherwise could get along very well. The first philosophy book I ever read I found in the basement, he had a decent library, but a philosophy book was somewhat out of place. I read it, wasn't particularly fascinated by it. But I asked dad about it, and he said it was his textbook for a class he took as part of a continuing education thing for work. He said it was ridiculous, and he got into several arguments with the professor, and bore testimony of Joseph Smith and the restoration to him in front of the class. So honestly, quite a bit more extreme than MG. I can't even imagine how he'd get dogpiled on this forum, and let's face it, it would be his fault but at the same time, when I think about this, it makes me feel like giving people a break now and then.

[Gadianton]

I feel like some of my posts are worth a bit more exploration than they get sometimes. But whatever.

Most of the rest of your post continued to explore the Sorites paradox which hurts your case as much as it helps your case, and it's already been discussed extensively here and I didn't feel like continuing to respond to it. Have you ever applied the Sorites paradox to your claim that you know the church is true? How does it apply to critics questioning the church but not to you establishing it?

You take your baseline beliefs about the church as the default way the world really is, and if anyone disagrees, they have Sorites to contend with. They can never overturn the baseline because nobody can resolve the Sorites paradox. Paradoxes like that aren't useful for settling real empirical claims because if they are true, they undercut all claims equally and there's no point discussing anything because nothing can be true.

Another example. I predict you won't go to church tomorrow. Why? Because of Aristotle's paradox of motion. You must first get halfway to church, then halfway between the halfway point and church, then halfway between the 3/4 mark and church and so on ad infinitum; never actually arriving*. This also proves that Joseph Smith could never have obtained the gold plates because first he'd have to get halfway up the hill Cumorah, then 3/4s and so on into infinity, never reaching the stone.

*the paradox has been updated several times to accommodate calculus and plank-length, the essential point still stands today so please, no terse dismissals.

[Limnor]

Ahh...Both are external. There is no such thing as internal revelation. The difference that I mean between first and second order manifestations might be best explained by the difference between having a muse and having a magic 8-ball. A muse is in the background giving you flashes of ideas or even taking over at times bringing truths to light through you. A muse might even guide which way to go in a fork in the road. But the muse isn't interactive. You can't ask the muse a question. The 8-ball is interactive, but waiting for you to initiate. You figure out what you want to know, bring the question to the 8-ball, and the 8-ball will answer. It's got to be a yes/no question. The ideal is in the D&C, ask the Lord and either a) burning bosom or b) stupor of thought. The Liahona is based on 8-ball architecture.

Both the muse and magic 8-ball are in the scriptures, mostly it's the muse. But in terms of "testimony" or the "witness" when reading and praying about the Book of Mormon, it's assumed an 8-ball model that can absolutely confirm or deny a truth on a matter that is put in proposition terms.

Gad, I hope all is well with you and your family.

I’ll be brief, but wanted to let you know I did see your muse vs. 8-ball explanation, and it makes sense to me. I can see why the 8-ball model is attractive to adherents—it reduces pressure by settling the big question decisively, while the muse almost sounds like intuition, and would work better for day-to-day guidance where such certainty may not be as vital.

I think Kierkegaard would reject the 8-ball model altogether., because the 8-ball would remove the risk and responsibility that defines faith. I can see, however, why this would feel like a feature from inside the system.

[Limnor]

I can't even imagine how he'd get dogpiled on this forum, and let's face it, it would be his fault but at the same time, when I think about this, it makes me feel like giving people a break now and then.

That resonates, and I appreciate you sharing it. I’ll try and remember to give people some grace, even when the conversations themselves get frustrating.

[Limnor]

MG,stated that he thought folks were talking around the question he thought was central. I thought the question confused by not being clear as to what sort of writing is in question. I think of the question in terms Paul's proposal that for those who love God all things work together for good. That hardly means no bad things happen but God brings events to a good end for those who love God.

I do not think God sending messages to establish authority is in view at all. I do think God inspires but expects people to use their heart and mind to understand decide and make rules. Humans error so there are crooked paths written by people. This would be true for important Christian leaders like the Pope or minor leaders like the minister down the street.

I think this is helpful, and I also think you’re probably right that this isn’t quite what MG originally had in view. Your comment—closer to Paul’s idea that God works through humans toward good ends—keeps moral responsibility squarely with people and treats crookedness as genuinely human rather than accepting the premise that crookedness can be redefined as straight through an appeal to authority.

[huckelberry]

MG,stated that he thought folks were talking around the question he thought was central. I thought the question confused by not being clear as to what sort of writing is in question. I think of the question in terms Paul's proposal that for those who love God all things work together for good. That hardly means no bad things happen but God brings events to a good end for those who love God.

I do not think God sending messages to establish authority is in view at all. I do think God inspires but expects people to use their heart and mind to understand decide and make rules. Humans error so there are crooked paths written by people. This would be true for important Christian leaders like the Pope or minor leaders like the minister down the street.

I think this is helpful, and I also think you’re probably right that this isn’t quite what MG originally had in view. Your comment—closer to Paul’s idea that God works through humans toward good ends—keeps moral responsibility squarely with people and treats crookedness as genuinely human rather than accepting the premise that crookedness can be redefined as straight through an appeal to authority.

Limnor I think you have furthered my thought well, thankyou.