God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

It is hard for me to believe MG is actually wanting to get to the truth of things when he keeps bringing up the Sorites paradox and we have already showed it doesn't work the way MG thinks it does. I am curious if he will actually engage on this response of yours and grapple with the problem of using the paradox to keep critics at bay, since that is the only reason he uses it, and it fails. I looked into it a bit as well and my over view of its weakness as helping Mormonism as MG wishes comes down to a couple things.
What the Sorites paradox actually does is exposes vagueness in words like (heap, bald, tall, etc.). It shows that when concepts lack sharp boundaries, that is when using reason that depends on precise cutoff points becomes unstable. It is a problem about language and classification, not about whether concrete historical or empirical claims are true. Apparently MG will not accept this view, even though the rest of the world sees it. Wiki actually has a really decent article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Sorites does not establish truth. And it never will even be able to do so. It also does not generate positive knowledge. And it never will be able to do so. It only shows that some distinctions are fuzzy. The problem now is MG's using it weirdly at best, and he refuses to acknowledge that and repent and quit doing so. In other words, he is being disingenuous about it, and it really shows. MG is using Sorites as a shield for his testimony parable, not as an analysis as it is meant to be used. So what happens is we raise a lot of objections and evidence against the Church. MG now say that “You can’t show the exact point where belief becomes unreasonable.” And now he thinks that puts it in a position that the Church therefore remains true after all, yippie! I win! MG has no idea what a non-sequitur is, unfortunately. Just because there isn't a precise cutoff does not imply that the overall claim is true at all. Even with a best case scenario, confidence can only be gradual not binary such as either true or false. MG refuses to consider the meaning of this. It is what you are trying to get him to see, and he probably won't do so, and I think he does this on purpose, which really makes me careful in believing what he presents now as evidence in the Churches favor. This gradualness of evidences instead of just plop - true or false - applies to coming to find out the church is true as much as it is coming to find all the problems and hence the falseness of it.

The fatal problem MG is skipping is when he applies Sorites in only one direction, as you have already noted Gad, and we have not seen him acknowledge this yet. If we criticize and question the church, Sorites rescues MG since he thinks it makes all criticisms not ever complete, nor can they be. They are indeterminate. When MG bears his testimony that the church is true, that is philosophically illegitimate. The reason why is, once again, patently, openly, easily obvious. If Sorites undermines our ability to say “this is false,” it equally undermines MG’s ability to say “this is true.” MG is special pleading with claiming certainty itself, which comes from the exact same vagueness that he uses as a weapon AGAINST any criticisms! So if vagueness dissolves criticisms, then it equally as well dissolves evidences in favor. The actual truth if we invoke Sorites can only be as strong as this wishy-washy view - It is because there is vagueness that neither critics nor believers can make any strong truth claims about the church and prophets. But this would, of course, undo his apologetic. He imagines that by freezing the default position (the Church is true), and at the same time preventing any challenge from reaching a decisive conclusion, that Sorites is a Mormon weapon. That is not philosophy, that is boundary policing.

Sorites is literally powerless and hence useless for determining if the Church is true. It cannot protect truth claims from a cumulative evidence that refutes the Church. When it is used consistently Sorites actually weakens claims of certainty, including Mormon testimony claims. Using it selectively as MG continually illogically does is an apologetics tactic, not a valid argument.

[Limnor]

It’s always been phrased as “When should we stop believing,” but never “Why should we believe this claim in the first place?”

By that logic, at what point does The Lord of the Rings stop being historical?

[Philo Sofee]

It’s always been phrased as “When should we stop believing,” but never “Why should we believe this claim in the first place?”

By that logic, at what point does The Lord of the Rings stop being historical?

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! I saw (see) what you did there. Very clever boy.........very clever indeed. We shall await the MG response with relish!

[Philo Sofee]

I actually sincerely want to know from who did MG get his idea concerning Sorites and truth of Mormonism from... I am seriously curious who would set him on this track of thinking...

[I Have Questions]

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.

MG is avoiding addressing this key point.

[I Have Questions]

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.

MG is avoiding addressing this point. He says he wants people to engage with his topic, but refuses to respond when they do.

[Res Ipsa]

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



"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.



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.



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.



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

Why do think that your OP presents moral dilemmas or conundrums for critics? You certainly haven’t made any sort of case for that conclusion. My argument is that your initial proposition is trivially true, especially when it’s you who gets to define straight and crooked.

Also, which of your points do you think no one has addressed? Rather than making a non-specific claim to play the victim, just tell us what they are in a straight forward manner.

In my opinion, it is disingenuous for you to present folks here with a vaguely worded proposition, encourage people to talk about it, repeatedly enter the discussion to tell us you are just sitting back and watching, and then after pages of discussion complain that you aren’t being taken seriously because people didn’t say what you wanted them to say.

In my opinion, the only interesting part of the OP is why you posted it. You obviously had a point you wanted to make, but it wasn’t clear at all what it was you wanted to talk about. Your later comments indicate that you thought the topic would be controversial. I have no idea why you would think that.

The best way to avoid being talked around is to express your ideas clearly. Unfortunately, your “Mental Gymnast” role leads you to do the opposite.

If you want people to address your points, I’d suggest the following:

1. State your points directly and clearly.
2. Stop dodging people’s attempts to respond to you by playing the “asked and answered” game.
3. Stop claiming that you’ve already addressed a point without quoting yourself doing just that.
4. Stop ignoring criticisms of something you’ve posted. You’ve never addressed the valid criticisms people made about your use of the Sorites paradox.

[Res Ipsa]

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?

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?

That might be a better question for MG. But he won’t answer it.

I think this is a great question, but would strike the word random. The construction of the straight lines by the believer is intentional.

[Gadianton]

It’s always been phrased as “When should we stop believing,” but never “Why should we believe this claim in the first place?”

By that logic, at what point does The Lord of the Rings stop being historical?

Exactly, your second sentence is the perfect rejoinder to his stream of questions that all assume the church is true as the default position. Sorites is one of many insights into the failure of knowledge or certainty; there are a hundred other ways to be skeptical. The key problem with MG and Sorites isn't just his odd uses of it for situations in which it doesn't really apply, like in math straight vs. crooked lines, but the fact that for religion he uses it selectively only to create doubt about the doubts of critics when it trivially applies to his beliefs as well.

Your first sentence is just as important. I think I've mentioned in the past that the bishop will never question you if you say you received a witness that the Book of Mormon is true. Many members are very hard on themselves and don't believe they've had a witness, but it would be very rare for them to publicly question the witness of somebody else. Perhaps this helps clarify the post-hoc nature of straight vs. crooked lines. If you receive a "yes" answer immediately after prayer, it follows a clear formula, and nobody in the church will ever disagree. If you receive "no" or not an answer, then oh, the lines are crooked, life is messy, we can't expect it to be so easy. The possibility is never entertained that a "yes" answer could be a false positive.

Also, this leans into the problem you mentioned of how does anybody know x is an answer? Can third parties weigh in? In theory its unquestionable for the feeler and the third party has no weapon against the testimony. But it comes down to the performance, in reality. Learning how to bear testimony with the right words; it's a language game. If you tell the bishop you got your witness, tears are in your eyes, and you leave it at that, perfect performance 10/10. If you tell your bishop you finally got your answer, the burning in the bosom literally manifest itself, your chest was on fire, he's going to go with it and it's right out of the D&C so how can he question it? But that's a 6 out of 10, and he'll have concerns. Even though members speak about the burning hypothetically, it's rare for someone to claim it in a brash, straight manner like this. Even though it's technically the most pure language based on the scriptures. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's the "horse and buggy language" sounds odd. Maybe it's too aggressive, nobody is really feeling that so better speak with more nuance. I can't really say, but, the language game hasn't evolved to include it. You can say "I know without a shadow of a doubt" which is nearly as aggressive, and that's a 9/10 for the bishop; it's one of the most common phrases. It really comes down to the performance (thanks for that word, Marcus). The performance can't be defined by the scripture or even the prophet.

[Limnor]

Your first sentence is just as important. I think I've mentioned in the past that the bishop will never question you if you say you received a witness that the Book of Mormon is true.

I’ve been thinking about the role of testimony itself. I didn’t realize that the “Fast and Testimony” ritual was a kind of requirement, I had thought that it was a voluntary event—though maybe it is voluntary, with an unstated and underlying pressure to perform the ceremony. Could you please explain the Bishop’s role in the bearing of a testimony?

A biblical-type testimony—“confess that Jesus is Lord”—makes sense to me because I can explain it as a statement about trust and relationship. It doesn’t function as a falsifiable historical claim. Creedal recitations, by saying “I believe,” seem to leave room for doubt.

The thing about applying that confessional language to saying “I know that a book is factually true” reads more like a “tell” to me that something strange is happening, though to be fair the same could be said about the biblical-type confession or a creedal recitation. Maybe the “tell” is because there isn’t really an accepted space for “I’m not sure, but I’m still here.”

I’ve thought about the LDS testimony in terms of serving as a replacement for a creed or confession, in spite of Joseph’s explicit rejection of such things. If that’s the case, saying “I know” speaks more to the role of binding people together than the actual epistemic belief of the confessor.