God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Res Ipsa]

It would be deemed problematic and you’d be asked to leave. Politely.

No one would listen anyway, right?

My recollection is that testimony bearers had substantial leeway. In the ward I grew up in, the line was drawn at the Guy who testified that SWK was a false prophet and that he was the true prophet. But the Guy who testified that he stopped the rain by making the temple signs was fine and dandy. I suspect that Bishop roulette is heavily in play.

[bill4long]

No one would listen anyway, right?

My recollection is that testimony bearers had substantial leeway. In the ward I grew up in, the line was drawn at the Guy who testified that SWK was a false prophet and that he was the true prophet. But the Guy who testified that he stopped the rain by making the temple signs was fine and dandy. I suspect that Bishop roulette is heavily in play.

Mark Hoffman fooled the "prophet" SWK And several other "prophets, seers and revelators".

In spades

And Hoffman was a (closeted) gay atheist, hellbent on fuqqing up the church. And making a tidy profit in the process.

As my grandpappy used to say, "that Mormon priesthood power of discernment don't work so good"

[Philo Sofee]

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.

Can you imagine if missionaries in their tracting door to door when a door was answered said "We are here to testify of the truth of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and revelation, and you! YOU have to join now or prove it false, because we aren't the ones who have any proving to do, we testify it is true, now prove us wrong!"

[Limnor]

No one would listen anyway, right?

My recollection is that testimony bearers had substantial leeway. In the ward I grew up in, the line was drawn at the Guy who testified that SWK was a false prophet and that he was the true prophet. But the Guy who testified that he stopped the rain by making the temple signs was fine and dandy. I suspect that Bishop roulette is heavily in play.

Wow. I was feeling a little bad for even offering that I might bear my testimony. And that it would be understandable to be asked to leave. But stopping rain?

Maybe I do need to go see this.

[malkie]

No one would listen anyway, right?

My recollection is that testimony bearers had substantial leeway. In the ward I grew up in, the line was drawn at the Guy who testified that SWK was a false prophet and that he was the true prophet. But the Guy who testified that he stopped the rain by making the temple signs was fine and dandy. I suspect that Bishop roulette is heavily in play.

I knew such a guy once. If I recall correctly, he had a bit of a following, and at one point he had to be ejected from the grounds of an LDS temple for hassling patrons.

[Res Ipsa]

My recollection is that testimony bearers had substantial leeway. In the ward I grew up in, the line was drawn at the Guy who testified that SWK was a false prophet and that he was the true prophet. But the Guy who testified that he stopped the rain by making the temple signs was fine and dandy. I suspect that Bishop roulette is heavily in play.

I knew such a guy once. If I recall correctly, he had a bit of a following, and at one point he had to be ejected from the grounds of an LDS temple for hassling patrons.

It really was a sad case. He never had a following that I knew of. He was eventually escorted off the premises. Personal revelation is a double edged sword that can lead to tragedy.

[Gadianton]

I’m thinking through how this might work, but I’m not as familiar with the LDS concept of the “Light of Christ.”

I think it may be similar to Wesleyan prevenient grace, which is considered a moral light that enables choosing Jesus without coercion. Catholicism also speaks to prevenient grace, where God’s grace precedes and enables the first steps toward faith while preserving free will.

These concepts could be aligned to Tolkien and the shaping of humans by music, and even the Light of Christ, but it is unclear to me how this would advance the crooked and straight line thinking. If you depend on the Light of Christ, prevenient grace, or Tolkien’s music, the less sense the crooked lines make, because if God gives light so people can see, why would you appeal to confusion as the method for conveying that truth?

I suspect the Light of Christ is even closer to the music than the sensus divinitatis, though all of these are closely related. The light of Christ includes the laws of physics and inspiring the minds of men to understand science, which as Philo explained it seems to be what music does also. Music is religious neutral language, however, that any culture could appreciate as basic moral sense.

So I think MG's hit here is dead on. Now, why would God bait with light as the metaphor and then switch to using confusion? I don't see any benefit. God can't damn people he doesn't like if they haven't been given a crystal clear warning. He can't draw people to the only true church out of thousands if he doesn't make it relatively straight forward to figure out the right one. He can't give commands like don't drink coffee and smoke tobacco if they can be interpreted as "guidelines" as Captain Jack Sparrow said about the Pirate Code.

However, if that's the case, which I agree is the reasonable one, then why wasn't the natural world simple enough for the wise council to figure out the true nature of the ring, such as to avoid a plan that involved taking possession of it, or why didn't Eru create the wise men with higher IQs such that they would have adduced this correctly through the murky complexity of the natural world? That way, the plot could proceed in a straightforward way where Frodo was able to directly complete the mission and save the world. Perhaps a mechanical device could have trapped the ring and whisked it into the volcano. Given that Eru is described (as I understand it) as omnipotent, omniscient, and the first cause, to me it seemed he pulled off something like the Abrahamic test but with more nuance.

[Limnor]

I suspect the Light of Christ is even closer to the music than the sensus divinitatis, though all of these are closely related. The light of Christ includes the laws of physics and inspiring the minds of men to understand science, which as Philo explained it seems to be what music does also. Music is religious neutral language, however, that any culture could appreciate as basic moral sense.

So I think MG's hit here is dead on. Now, why would God bait with light as the metaphor and then switch to using confusion? I don't see any benefit. God can't damn people he doesn't like if they haven't been given a crystal clear warning. He can't draw people to the only true church out of thousands if he doesn't make it relatively straight forward to figure out the right one. He can't give commands like don't drink coffee and smoke tobacco if they can be interpreted as "guidelines" as Captain Jack Sparrow said about the Pirate Code.

However, if that's the case, which I agree is the reasonable one, then why wasn't the natural world simple enough for the wise council to figure out the true nature of the ring, such as to avoid a plan that involved taking possession of it, or why didn't Eru create the wise men with higher IQs such that they would have adduced this correctly through the murky complexity of the natural world? That way, the plot could proceed in a straightforward way where Frodo was able to directly complete the mission and save the world. Perhaps a mechanical device could have trapped the ring and whisked it into the volcano. Given that Eru is described (as I understand it) as omnipotent, omniscient, and the first cause, to me it seemed he pulled off something like the Abrahamic test but with more nuance.

There is so much going on here and I am learning a great deal, so again want to say how much I appreciate these discussions—thinking through these issues to help define my own faith is a large part of why I keep coming back.

So that said, here are some of the thoughts swimming around in my head—please bear with me as I sort through this and share my conclusions.

First—there is a long-running joke that Tolkien missed an opportunity to “directly complete the mission” by using the eagles, but then we wouldn’t get to learn through the experience.

My second thought is Tolkien doesn’t have a “sacrifice Isaac” moment. There is no command that baffles his characters or the reader. It is understood that the ring must be destroyed. Frodo is aware that the ring converts what it touches into evil, so the moral conundrum is not confusion, it is temptation to maintain power.

So the reason that causes Frodo to ultimately fail is not due to confusion. Tolkien makes it about power—Frodo wants to keep the ring for himself, Gollum desires the ring for what it can provide him, and Sauron desires it for power as well.

Because there is knowledge of good and evil in Frodo’s situation, I think this means Tolkien aligns with the Light of Christ, Wesley and Catholic prevenient grace concepts.

Third thought. I think we need to have some shared definitions about what is happening in the Abraham story. I’ll start with the three terms that I think are most applicable.

Confusion: I don’t know what God wants—or the Council in Frodo’s case—or what is true.

Opacity: I know what God wants, but I don’t know how it can be reconciled with the promise or the good.

Temptation: I know the good, but desire power anyway.

Abraham faced opacity, not confusion, and we agree that crooked-line theology often appeals to confusion.

Frodo faced temptation, not confusion, he succumbed to the temptation to fulfill his desires.

Those are not the same tests.

Abraham’s case is not a temptation like Frodo’s. In fact, Abraham’s conscience should have rebelled because the command violates the basic understanding of good and evil.

Fourth thought. So what was happening?

Abraham needed something to help him when moral clarity broke down. He didn’t say anything about it, but he must have known there was something morally wrong with this command.

I think this is where the prevenient grace played a role. That grace didn’t perform a function of clarifying right from wrong, or shed light onto moral truth. What it did was it enable trust in God when moral clarity broke down.

Final thought. Bringing this back to Joseph’s attempt to use Abraham to justify his actions. Abraham knew exactly what God commanded and trusted God’s power to resolve the contradiction, without redefining good and evil or explaining himself.

Joseph Smith’s appeal to Abraham worked differently, Joseph depended on ambiguity, secrecy, and the redefining of morally unsound actions as divinely commanded—bait and switch.

Hope this adds to the discussion—I’d appreciate feedback and additional thoughts.

[I Have Questions]

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Regards,
MG

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

Hi MG, just a reminder that you owe Philo an explanation or an apology.

[Gadianton]

Limnor, I read your post a couple of times, I especially like the modalities of possible non-straightness. I began a response but talked myself out of it, but I will return to it.