God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

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.

I see, quite clearly, that you're very confident in your beliefs. What dilemma does "God writing straight with crooked lines" cause for a critic? It's an eye-popping pronouncement, given that your entire case; Kierkegaards case especially, rests upon the dilemma to sharpen faith. The dilemmas -- the conundrums are created expressly for the believer. It doesn't even make theoretical sense for God to create a conundrum for the critic because then the critic has an excuse. Critics are damned for "denying the sun in noon day". Not because they're confused by God's 10-sided Rubik's Cube. It's clarity that causes problems for the critic, earns their damnation, not confusion.

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.

Sorites Parodox in your first sentence, has nothing to do with the rest of your paragraph about God. At this point you're in full stream-of-conscious mode.

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.

I'm responding to every point you've made here in your latest post. Does that help? Tolkien was a side-track in some ways, but relevant in others. Does God write straight with crooked lines? is a relevant question for those supporting Tolkien but condemning God. You have the opportunity to use Tolkien to further your cause. How can the critic say Tolkien was a genius and succeeded where theologians fail, exactly? Tolkien was Catholic, after all, and likely trying to sneak his ideas about God into a neutral format that doesn't sound preachy. You had a good suggestion with the light of Christ being like Tolkien's music, I think you were totally correct there. But you must be careful. IF critics believe Tolkien avoided crooked lines, and you make Mormonism too much like Tolkien, then you're saying Mormonism is also straight-line. So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point. I know very little about Tolkien, but I'm gonna guess that he can't ultimately avoid the problems every other theologian eventually runs into.

[malkie]

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.

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.

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.

...

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

Qui accuse ...
(to be abbreviated in the future to QASA)

[Philo Sofee]

Gad:
I'm responding to every point you've made here in your latest post. Does that help? Tolkien was a side-track in some ways, but relevant in others. Does God write straight with crooked lines? is a relevant question for those supporting Tolkien but condemning God. You have the opportunity to use Tolkien to further your cause. How can the critic say Tolkien was a genius and succeeded where theologians fail, exactly? Tolkien was Catholic, after all, and likely trying to sneak his ideas about God into a neutral format that doesn't sound preachy. You had a good suggestion with the light of Christ being like Tolkien's music, I think you were totally correct there. But you must be careful. IF critics believe Tolkien avoided crooked lines, and you make Mormonism too much like Tolkien, then you're saying Mormonism is also straight-line. So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point. I know very little about Tolkien, but I'm gonna guess that he can't ultimately avoid the problems every other theologian eventually runs into.

That would genuinely be an eye-opening conversation, if MG were willing to have it. I would even be open to starting a new thread comparing Tolkien and Mormon theology, not to argue which is “right,” but to explore how each tradition handles perennial theological problems such as theodicy and moral ambiguity within Christianity more broadly. I doubt very much that such a discussion will occur, but I want to state for the record that I am open to it and would welcome a serious, good-faith exchange.

[Philo Sofee]

MG:
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.

I don’t agree that Tolkien was a “big giant sidetrack.” Calling it that doesn’t really reflect what was happening in the discussion. Tolkien came up because this thread is about how people deal with questions of evil, moral responsibility, and God’s role in the world isn't it? And Tolkien is a well-known example of someone who explores those same questions in a way many people respect.

If we who are critics praise Tolkien as thoughtful and morally serious, but criticize certain Mormon theological explanations as too neat or morally evasive, and even your own views MG, then comparing them isn’t a distraction. It helps us understand why people respond differently to each. Saying “God writes straight with crooked lines” feels very different when it’s shown through story, tragedy, and uncertainty than when it’s used as a clear explanation or justification. You don't get to be the only interpreter of that thought MG. What we are seeing here, is, the bias that has been brought into the discussion. Tolkien is an antidote to that bias.

So Tolkien wasn’t brought up to change the subject, but to shed light on it. If the concern is that critics are being inconsistent by admiring Tolkien while condemning God or theology, then looking at how Tolkien actually handles things like suffering and moral uncertainty is obviously the correct way forward. Brushing that off as a sidetrack feels less like engaging the issue and more like avoiding a hard but important question.

[Limnor]

So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point.

In an attempt to show a little grace, a satirical take on this game will be substituted with simple observations. Additionally, I agree with Philo that inserting Tolkien added to the game rather than detracted from it, particularly since there were no rules restricting that insertion.

I’ve conducted a lot of wargames and am familiar with game theory—normal game theory will have players agree on rules, objectives, and end states, and adjudication forces consequences—moves narrow options and eventually produce an outcome.

In this hopscotch game, objectives are fluid, relevance is temporary and aligned to unnamed predetermined outcomes rather than rule-bound, and adjudication is deferred by redrawing the scenario to lessen or completely eliminate constraints.

The result isn’t an invalid game, but it is an exploratory one whose design is structured to align to those pre-unstated positions. What’s interesting is the fluidity only goes one way and Tolkien or other hoppy taw tosses are ruled as outside the (still unstated) rules.

[Philo Sofee]

So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point.

In an attempt to show a little grace, a satirical take on this game will be substituted with simple observations. Additionally, I agree with Philo that inserting Tolkien added to the game rather than detracted from it, particularly since there were no rules restricting that insertion.

I’ve conducted a lot of wargames and am familiar with game theory—normal game theory will have players agree on rules, objectives, and end states, and adjudication forces consequences—moves narrow options and eventually produce an outcome.

In this hopscotch game, objectives are fluid, relevance is temporary and aligned to unnamed predetermined outcomes rather than rule-bound, and adjudication is deferred by redrawing the scenario to lessen or completely eliminate constraints.

The result isn’t an invalid game, but it is an exploratory one whose design is structured to align to those pre-unstated positions. What’s interesting is the fluidity only goes one way and Tolkien or other hoppy taw tosses are ruled as outside the (still unstated) rules.

Good observation. I would also propose that if ONLY Mormon ideas are allowed, then that be stipulated up front. I mean if Kierkegaard can be used, so can Tolkien, Paul Foster Case, Albert Einstein, Sam Harris and anyone else having ideas on morality and making straight lines out of crooked ones. The exploratory idea is exactly why I brought in Tolkien because as Joseph Smith himself said only by proving contraries can truth be made manifest. So we need other views to compare to what MG was proposing. To dismiss those is quite unfathomable based on how MG set this up. But is it any surprise really that they are trying to be dismissed? When outside views start to clarify the limits of an argument, it’s often easier to call them distractions than to deal with what they reveal.

[MG 2.0]

If Sorites undermines our ability to say “this is false,” it equally undermines MG’s ability to say “this is true.”

I understand that. Yes, it does go both ways.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

If Sorites undermines our ability to say “this is false,” it equally undermines MG’s ability to say “this is true.”

I understand that. Yes, it does go both ways.

Regards,
MG

MG, from what I understand, in using Sorites, you're less concerned with proving 'the Church is true,' than you are in asserting that critics cannot prove it to be otherwise. Do I have that right? (I'm not rebutting, here. I'm trying to help you clarify your approach.)

[bill4long]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept...if there is a creator God...that He would "write straight with crooked lines?" It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn't ask the question if I didn't have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine...as usual...folks will 'hop' all over the place simply trying to either make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a creator God, can/does He write straight with crooked lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I'm going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

Regards,
MG

The Mormon god is not the Most High. Not the Root Reality. He's a contingent thing. Just like your poopy underwear.

Joe said so.

We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

Yeah, Joe, thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the Root.