God can write straight with crooked lines.

[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...

A few years ago on a podcast I heard a discussion of a book called, “Black and White Thinking-The Burden of a Binary Brain in a Complex World” by Kevin Dutton.

The ideas expressed in the book made a large impression on me. The author spends time digging into the Sorites Paradox. I discussed the book and its ideas on this board at the time. I can’t remember how these ideas were received then. They probably weren’t welcome I would guess.

I’ve thought about it a lot since that time and how these ideas/principles fit into a world of ambiguity and uncertainty.

Regards,
MG

OK, excellent. I shall look into it. I think based on what I have been able to find, that Sorites does not help you in the way you think it does. It has nothing to do about being right or wrong, it is about ambiguity of predicates, not discovering something is true or false. I do believe that is where the confusion in your mind lies.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Regards,
MG

I appreciate that. The implication, then, is that Tolkien isn’t a distraction but a valid lens for the discussion. If that’s the case, we can fairly compare how Tolkien, Mormon theology, and other approaches deal with evil, responsibility, and the idea of “crooked lines” without treating those comparisons as evasions.

That moves the conversation forward. instead of debating relevance, we can now look directly at why some ways of handling these questions feel morally serious to critics and others don’t.

[Philo Sofee]

How so? It appears to me you are the one shooting yourself in the foot. I don't use Sorites, you do.

I’m looking forward to MG explaining his comment.

Yes, I as well. It is completely bewildering to say what he said. I can't shoot myself in the foot, I don't wield the gun of Sorites, MG does.

[Res Ipsa]

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 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.



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.

Thanks for your additional response, Gadianton. I will again say that the Sorites Paradox provides the same dilemma for a believing member of the church as it does for the critic. How much is too much or too little. Better put for believing members, “How much is enough?”

The thing is, there is this principle called faith. You can probably see how that enters into the picture along with Sorites. I mentioned earlier that the road of faith can be tricky at times…crooked…but has the potential of leading towards a more straight and narrow path that leads to perfect knowledge.

I’m sure you would agree that one wouldn’t normally expect this knowledge to come in one fell swoop. At times it may, but most often I think it is a work in progress. One worth the effort in my opinion. One grain of sand at a time.

Regards,
MG

You are mistaking assertion for argument. There’s a perfectly understandable reason why you cannot explain how the Sorites paradox poses a moral conundrum for non-believers.

[MG 2.0]

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

Regards,
MG

OK, so this admits it's useless to use. Acknowledge that and quit using it then. Why did you even bring it up at all?

I don’t see it as useless at all. Especially when critics refer to a “smoking gun” or refer to incontrovertible evidence. You and I both know, for example with polygamy, that the critics will cherry pick (so will the apologists) and then simply conclude, “Joseph was a scoundrel/dirtbag”.

Well, in this area of controversy along with others it’s not quite that simple.

I’m pointing out that neither ‘side’ has built up the ‘pile’ to conclusively prove the church is true or false.

It’s really that simple. The line is rather crooked. My contention is that God can and does make those crooked lines straight in order to carry out His plans and make His paths straight.

I don’t think what I’ve brought up in this thread is a waste of time at all. In fact, I think it strikes at the core of many things.

Off to Fast Meeting.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I’m looking forward to MG explaining his comment.

Yes, I as well. It is completely bewildering to say what he said. I can't shoot myself in the foot, I don't wield the gun of Sorites, MG does.

He won’t because he can’t. We’re at the point in every discussion with MG at which he reverts to unsupported assertions followed by playing the victim.

[Limnor]

It is not an open mic session for people to declare their understanding of the purpose of life etc. even if that’s what happens in your ward. Please stop misleading Limnor.

Thank you.

More specifically I was wondering if the bishop judges whether the testimony is “true”?

It doesn’t seem like it, but I was looking for clarity about the 6/10 or 10/10 ratings Gad was talking about. He probably wasn’t being literal but I wanted to check my understanding.

[Gadianton]

Limnor,

First, on the bishop's role, your questions are fascinating; I'm blown away by the assumptions I make in my explanations. I do challenge you to attend a fast and testimony meeting for your own research. First Sunday of the month. No, it's not a requirement to ever bear testimony, although often unofficial "challenges" arise. Like, a Deacon's Quorum president might say, "hey -- let's all bear our testimonies next Sunday." And there is social pressure sort of, but not terribly. My mom was known as one of the most fundamental members of the ward and an example of faith and pure living but she never bore testimony. It will stretch your knowledge of game theory to the brink. The only relevance of the bishop is he's in charge of the ward, if inappropriate testimonies are borne, he'd need to deal with the person. And Bishops interview members, and I'm guessing a usual issue that members might discuss with their bishop is if they really have a testimony. So members get advice about their testimony in a personal manner from the bishop all the time. As even a modest missionary zone leader, I had elders and sisters several times ask for advice on their testimonies in ZL interviews.

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.

A critical observation. I'd cautiously advise that it's not an entirely falsifiable claim, as many members will find ways around it. I've pointed out a few times that the Early Modern English theory effectively absolves the need for history in every way should members figure it out and go that route. Many apologists substitute "ancient" for "historical" and leave it all ambiguous. One is testifying "it's true" in an abstract sense that really has no coherent meaning, but what it might practically mean in propositional language is entirely post-hoc. But it is a claim about absolute truth with all the risks associated with calling it that.

The confessional is an important contrast. People interpret Packer in multiple ways, I was initially surprised by the "fake it til you make it" interpretation, because that's not how I took it. On that interpretation, one might grow in their testimony until it fully matures, implying along the way, it wasn't actual "knowledge" when they said, "I know". But, in fact, his version could reduce the testimony to a confessional. Overstating one's certainty could be interpreted as a mark of faith. In fact, a FARMS essay I read once made this very case, not using your wording, but they essentially said that members don't really "know" but believe it so emphatically and hope so emphatically, that it's expressed as a certainty. A lover might oversell their devotion to a partner, and the oversell could be interpreted as a positive because it means their partner is so desperate to please them, or to emphasize that they can't possibly love something any more than to say it's perfect love.

This possible "fake it" interpretation of Packer was surprising to me. I could see it after I heard other people saying it. My understanding, however, was that when you get up the guts to say "I know..." in public about something you don't, you're taking a huge Abraham-like risk of lying. When you step out into the darkness and take that risk, at that very moment, the spirit comes down and bears witness, right as you're in the process of saying it, the light switch comes on at the very moment, and now as you say it, it isn't a lie! And my appreciation for Packer's utter brilliance of thinking of this, if indeed this is what he meant, because then after one takes this Abrahamic risk, and says "I know", they must stick with it and go along as if the spirit really had sealed the deal because otherwise, it would be a lie. It puts you into a trap. A brilliant, cunning, and devious one!

There are these urges to make a testimony something other than "perfect knowledge" about the thing at hand, say, the Book of Mormon as "true", to be more like a confessional to rescue members from lying, but members themselves reject it. See, Mormonism is all about that science lab getting greater, proven knowledge. Consider the greatest accomplishment a Mormon can secure in this life: calling and election made sure. This ritual, in principal, involves the "second comforter" the actual manifestation of Christ in the flesh to the person so the knowledge of Christ is absolute in every way. An actual, personal visitation, not a vision or a dream. The goal in Mormonism is perfect knowledge. This is what members want. And so the really sincere ones, they don't want to sell themselves short for anything less.

[I Have Questions]

It is not an open mic session for people to declare their understanding of the purpose of life etc. even if that’s what happens in your ward. Please stop misleading Limnor.

Thank you.

More specifically I was wondering if the bishop judges whether the testimony is “true”?

It doesn’t seem like it, but I was looking for clarity about the 6/10 or 10/10 ratings Gad was talking about. He probably wasn’t being literal but I wanted to check my understanding.

The Bishop, and his counsellors, will listen out for anything that’s said that’s at odds with Church doctrine. And maybe have to step in afterwards and correct it. But that’s rare. It’s mostly exactly as Gad has outlined. Nobody is making assessment about whether a testimony is “true” or not. Well, maybe the congregants are privately. For starters, nobody knows what the term “true” means in the context of a testimony. “I know the church is true” and “I know the Book of Mormon is true” are meaningless statements unless one has an agreed definition of what “true” encompasses. And of course, you can never pin that down.

[I Have Questions]

Yes, I as well. It is completely bewildering to say what he said. I can't shoot myself in the foot, I don't wield the gun of Sorites, MG does.

He won’t because he can’t. We’re at the point in every discussion with MG at which he reverts to unsupported assertions followed by playing the victim.

I think you have called it correctly.