God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

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.

I think that’s a great suggestion, Limnor would find it fascinating. Although I would advise him to go with someone that can run interference and stop him being hounded by missionaries etc as a new face tends to attract that kind of “let’s convert him” attention.

[malkie]

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.

The Bishop, or the person conducting the meeting, may have a "kill-mike" switch built in to their chair. It's very rare, but not unheard of, for the member to be cut off if they go too far astray.
Mormon church leaders cut microphone after young girl announces she's gay

[Limnor]

Gad wrote: 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.

This seems to match my truth claims of the book.

Gad wrote: 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!

I’ve thought about this less in terms of truth suddenly arriving and more in terms of an intense experience that can come with taking a risky step that you know is wrong—the “lying” you mention. There can be a surge of adrenaline or release that can feel like confirmation in the moment, but it might be tied to the act of crossing a line rather than to the truth of what’s being said.

[Limnor]

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.

I think that’s a great suggestion, Limnor would find it fascinating. Although I would advise him to go with someone that can run interference and stop him being hounded by missionaries etc as a new face tends to attract that kind of “let’s convert him” attention.

How would it go over if I bore my testimony that the book was true and reflected the lives of Joseph and his initial followers?

[Limnor]

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.

The Bishop, or the person conducting the meeting, may have a "kill-mike" switch built in to their chair. It's very rare, but not unheard of, for the member to be cut off if they go too far astray.
Mormon church leaders cut microphone after young girl announces she's gay

I’ve seen a YouTube video in which this happened and the fellow was escorted out.

[malkie]

I think that’s a great suggestion, Limnor would find it fascinating. Although I would advise him to go with someone that can run interference and stop him being hounded by missionaries etc as a new face tends to attract that kind of “let’s convert him” attention.

How would it go over if I bore my testimony that the book was true and reflected the lives of Joseph and his initial followers?

You might be disappointed in the lack of reaction. Between the people sleeping, those surfing the internet, those preoccupied with rehearsing what they are going to say, and those who would have no clue what you are talking about, you may have an actual audience in the low single figures.
And these people have heard (and probably said) enough weird stuff in F&T meeting that they would be totally OK.

[Limnor]

How would it go over if I bore my testimony that the book was true and reflected the lives of Joseph and his initial followers?

You might be disappointed in the lack of reaction. Between the people sleeping, those surfing the internet, those preoccupied with rehearsing what they are going to say, and those who would have no clue what you are talking about, you may have an actual audience in the low single figures.
And these people have heard (and probably said) enough weird stuff in F&T meeting that they would be totally OK.

Well that’s disappointing. I mentioned it to a separate individual than the one from 20 years or so ago and he said he thought it was interesting but that was about it.

[Res Ipsa]

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

Finally, we get an actual argument to respond to. But it’s nothing other than the same old tired Mopologetics we’ve seen ad nauseum: critics have the burden to conclusively prove that the church is false.

For the ordinary truth seeker, this assertion is absurd. What it does is effectively assert that every thing that a person can imagine must be treated as true unless it is conclusively proven as false. And what that burden translates as is “proves that the proposition cannot possibly be true.”

No person genuinely interested in finding truth will begin the search with this kind of absurd special pleading. First, a sincere truth seeker will place the burden of proof on the person asserting a proposition. MG2.0 asserts that the church is “true.” That’s his burden of proof to carry. If he fails to do, it is perfectly rational for a “critic” to reject his proposition without proving anything. The critic of a proposition does not have the burden of proving the opposite of the proposition. That would be the kind of black and white thinking that MG2.0 claims to reject.

Moreover, the burden of proof should be much closer to the more likely than not burden that we use a million times a day in every day life. Who makes the important decisions in their life based on a requirement of “conclusive proof?” If conclusive proof were actually the requirement, we’d be completely paralyzed — unable to make any decisions about any issue.

This is the intellectually dishonest game that is the foundation of Mopologetics: my religious beliefs are true, and criticizing them is illegitimate unless you prove that they cannot possibly be true. And I can invoke an omnipotent God in a way that makes nothing impossible.

What’s tricky is that the syllogism is formally valid:

1. The Mormon Church is true unless someone proves that it is impossible for it to be true.

2. With God, all things are possible.

3. Therefore, it is possible that the Church is true.

4. Therefore, the Church is true.

Formally valid. Absurd premises.

As a critic, this poses no moral dilemma for me whatsoever. I evaluate the truth of the claim that “the Church is true” the same way that I evaluate every other truth claim: by placing the appropriate burden of proof on the person making the proposition. And, if that person fails to carry that burden, I am free to discard that truth claim without proving anything. Treating all truth claims the same way creates no dilemmas or conundrums.

MG2.0 does, however, create nasty moral dilemmas for the believer. Take the example “by their fruits ye shall know them. MG2.0’s claim robs the believer of the ability to exercise moral judgment at all. He will always interpret the actions of his church’s leaders, no matter how crooked, as God writing in straight lines. It is a complete abdication of moral responsibility. It is how MG2.0 twists himself into justifying child abuse as necessary for the abuser’s free agency.

Indeed, one could argue that MG2.0’s claim is a negation of actual free agency. If MG2.0 cannot distinguish between straight and crooked lines, does he actually have free agency. Isn’t knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to free agency? How can we choose between right and wrong when Sorites paradox means we can never distinguish between right and wrong?

[Philo Sofee]

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

I don’t think anyone is saying the historical issues are simple or that one side has built an airtight case. But that’s exactly why the phrase “God writes straight with crooked lines” becomes a problem when it’s used this way you are using it for.

If neither side can build a conclusive pile, then appealing to God’s ability to straighten crooked lines doesn’t actually help us evaluate the evidence. I am amazed you can't see that. What this does is it just suspends judgment while still favoring one conclusion. At that point it isn’t an insight, it’s a way of insulating a belief from critique. Just like we have said you do, and are continuing to do. You appear to want to protect your cherished belief above all criticisms. Sorites and God making straight lines out of crooked ones don't do it for you. That is precisely my point, as well as everyone else's. Your misuse of philosophical issues is more amusing than instructive, even though you think it sounds cool to use them.

We critics aren’t asking for a “smoking gun” so much as a framework that doesn’t turn moral and historical failures into features of a divine plan by default. Saying “it’s crooked, but God straightens it” explains the outcome only after you’ve already decided what the outcome must be. That's cheating. It impresses all of us more that you are more comfortable in cheating to make Mormonism valid, than doing it in actual real and viable ways.

That’s why Tolkien matters here: he allows for crooked lines without turning them into justifications. Your justifications for using Sorites in the way you do are unjustified. The suffering remains real, the wrongs remain wrong, and no conclusion is protected in advance. That you have to manipulate the outcomes to protect Mormonism is all we really need to see to understande why Mormonism doesn't cut it. You have to manipulate it in order to keep it valid. That is the most telling thing you are showing, and you are apparently entirely unaware that that is how you are seen doing it. It astonishes us really......

[Philo Sofee]

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

Finally, we get an actual argument to respond to. But it’s nothing other than the same old tired Mopologetics we’ve seen ad nauseum: critics have the burden to conclusively prove that the church is false.

For the ordinary truth seeker, this assertion is absurd. What it does is effectively assert that every thing that a person can imagine must be treated as true unless it is conclusively proven as false. And what that burden translates as is “proves that the proposition cannot possibly be true.”

No person genuinely interested in finding truth will begin the search with this kind of absurd special pleading. First, a sincere truth seeker will place the burden of proof on the person asserting a proposition. MG2.0 asserts that the church is “true.” That’s his burden of proof to carry. If he fails to do, it is perfectly rational for a “critic” to reject his proposition without proving anything. The critic of a proposition does not have the burden of proving the opposite of the proposition. That would be the kind of black and white thinking that MG2.0 claims to reject.

Moreover, the burden of proof should be much closer to the more likely than not burden that we use a million times a day in every day life. Who makes the important decisions in their life based on a requirement of “conclusive proof?” If conclusive proof were actually the requirement, we’d be completely paralyzed — unable to make any decisions about any issue.

This is the intellectually dishonest game that is the foundation of Mopologetics: my religious beliefs are true, and criticizing them is illegitimate unless you prove that they cannot possibly be true. And I can invoke an omnipotent God in a way that makes nothing impossible.

What’s tricky is that the syllogism is formally valid:

1. The Mormon Church is true unless someone proves that it is impossible for it to be true.

2. With God, all things are possible.

3. Therefore, it is possible that the Church is true.

4. Therefore, the Church is true.

Formally valid. Absurd premises.

As a critic, this poses no moral dilemma for me whatsoever. I evaluate the truth of the claim that “the Church is true” the same way that I evaluate every other truth claim: by placing the appropriate burden of proof on the person making the proposition. And, if that person fails to carry that burden, I am free to discard that truth claim without proving anything. Treating all truth claims the same way creates no dilemmas or conundrums.

MG2.0 does, however, create nasty moral dilemmas for the believer. Take the example “by their fruits ye shall know them. MG2.0’s claim robs the believer of the ability to exercise moral judgment at all. He will always interpret the actions of his church’s leaders, no matter how crooked, as God writing in straight lines. It is a complete abdication of moral responsibility. It is how MG2.0 twists himself into justifying child abuse as necessary for the abuser’s free agency.

Indeed, one could argue that MG2.0’s claim is a negation of actual free agency. If MG2.0 cannot distinguish between straight and crooked lines, does he actually have free agency. Isn’t knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to free agency? How can we choose between right and wrong when Sorites paradox means we can never distinguish between right and wrong?

I think this is finally getting to the real issue, and I agree with much of what Res Ipsa is saying about burden of proof. In ordinary reasoning, we don’t require critics to prove a claim cannot possibly be true before rejecting it. The burden normally rests with the person making the truth claim, and the standard we use in real life is closer to “more likely than not,” not absolute or conclusive proof.

Where I want to be careful is here because my objection to MG’s use of “God writes straight with crooked lines” is not that history is simple, or that critics never cherry-pick, or that human judgment is easy. It’s that the phrase functions as a belief protecting move, not one that does any evaluating. It doesn’t help us weigh evidence since it weakly suspends evaluation while quietly privileging one conclusion, MG's only, no one else counts. The game is rigged. MG, open your eyes, the game you propound here is rigged beforehand and we all see it. Is this really how you want the world to see you defending God and Mormonism, by cheating up front in order to win? Really? It's what you are doing and we all see it. Go ahead and deny it, that doesn't change anything..

That’s the asymmetry. When things look bad, the crooked lines are said to be part of God’s plan. When things look good, they’re taken as confirmation. Either way, the conclusion is fixed in advance by MG, which is less than realistic. At that point, the phrase no longer explains anything, it's just insulating, not contributing anything.

This is exactly why Tolkien mattered earlier in the thread. Tolkien allows for crooked lines without turning them into justifications. Wrong remains wrong. Tragedy remains tragic. No moral failure is retroactively redeemed by appealing to divine intent. Meaning may emerge, but it is never used to cancel responsibility.

So my concern isn’t that MG is wrong to resist “smoking gun” thinking. It’s that once “God straightens crooked lines” becomes the governing principle, moral judgment is no longer doing any real work. And if moral judgment is always deferred upward, then “by their fruits ye shall know them” loses its teeth entirely. Is this comfortable for MG?

That’s not skepticism. That’s abdication.

If MG wants this idea to strike “at the core of many things,” then it has to be constrained, otherwise it explains everything and therefore explains nothing.