God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Philo Sofee]

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.

Soooooo, well you asked for it, I shall see if I can share some things. First off, this is an excellent break down and analysis of the important points. Your core move is the right one: naming different kinds of moral tests...

Your three items, namely confusion / opacity / temptation—is not just helpful. It appears to me pretty all conclusive.

Most arguments in this space try to collapse these into one vague category (“hard things God asks us to do”). You didn’t. That alone advances the discussion. So the following definitions are important because it keeps us straight, I am not trying to talk down to anyone here.

Confusion means I don’t know what is right.

Opacity means I know what is right, but I don’t see how it can be reconciled.

Temptation means I know what is right, but I want something else.

The important thing here is understanding these are not interchangeable. We can't pretend they are and end up treating them as if they are, which is exactly how crooked-line theology smuggles in moral exceptions to. We aren't after moral exceptions, we are after moral clarity. In other words, You’re right to insist on separating them, because this keeps the basis of our understanding well, understandable.

In Tolkien’s moral world we find temptation to be sure, but not the confusion we find in so much of Christianity these days. I can't see a lot wrong with your ideas on Frodo. He knows the Ring is evil. He also knows it has to be destroyed, something Isildur thousands of years earlier really should have done after he cut it off Sauron's finger. So what we see here is no uncertainty involved with the moral problem. It is power that is the moral problem. Once again, as I think many have caught on because it has been repeated, necessarily, not trivially,

Tolkien is not asking: “How do we act when God’s command contradicts morality?”
He’s asking: “What happens to a good will when it is exposed to absolute power?”

That places Tolkien squarely in a Light of Christ / prevenient grace framework, exactly as you suggest. Moral knowledge is already present. Grace doesn’t redefine good and evil; it enables resistance, and, in Frodo’s case, eventually shows its limits.
And crucially: Frodo’s failure is not justified. It is understood, pitied, even redeemed in outcome, but never declared good. That distinction is everything.

Abraham is showing us opacity, not temptation—and not confusion. This is where your post really clicks I believe. I think you put your finger on the point when you note Abraham does not face temptation (he gains nothing). He does not face confusion (he knows what he is commanded).
What he faces is opacity. What I mean is this is an irreconcilable contradiction between promise and command. And you’re also right that his conscience should rebel. That’s precisely why Kierkegaard matters here, but I do believe you’ve actually gone a step further. You’re saying (correctly, I think) that Abraham does not resolve the contradiction by redefining good and evil. We never read anywhere (not even in Joseph Smith's Abraham materials or sermons!) “Killing Isaac is actually good.” We never see him teach “Morality doesn’t apply here.” And we certainly never see the Mormon mindset I was spoon-fed “This will all make sense later, therefore it is justified.” He says nothing. He can't see the point and it's never explained, but it is endured.

Prevenient grace as trust when moral clarity breaks down is a strong and careful claim, and I think it’s defensible. Your meaning appears to me to say it is not prevenient grace that clarifies moral law. No, it's not that. It certainly does not override conscience, anymore than it lets people perform immoral acts. I see you clarifying it more along the lines of it is sustaining trust when personal conscience and divine command are in tension, i.e. conflict. So, in easy words we all can understand, let me say it in simple terms. Grace is not a moral eraser. We aren't dissolving the tension of when our own conscience rebels against a divine command either.

And Joseph Smith's appeal to Abraham fails because Abraham was clear about the command, as well as clear about it being so problematic! There is no appeal to secrecy, or recruiting anyone else, even redefining the basics of what is good or what is evil. Nothing is explained at all. This is where Joseph Smith got it wrong. There is no ambiguity of secrecy, or what the command meant, there is no moral violations reframed as obedience, there is no biblical appeals to Abraham as precedent for all future moral obediences to anything God commands either. That's not proving contraries, that's changing the rules in the middle of the game. Joseph Smith wants everyone to go and do the works of Abraham, and therein he invents his own rules to the game. Sometimes faith endures opacity without explanation and that endurance cannot be systematized, something Joseph tried to do, but the Bible never did..

You didn’t dismiss faith. You didn’t flatten morality. You didn’t weaponize ambiguity. You didn’t protect belief at the expense of judgment.
You clarified what kind of test is actually happening in each case—and once you do that, most of the smoke clears. This absolutely adds to the discussion. If anyone engages it seriously, they’ll have to engage your distinctions, not slogans.

[Limnor]

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.

Thanks Gad. No rush, we got nothing but time.

[Limnor]

You didn’t dismiss faith. You didn’t flatten morality. You didn’t weaponize ambiguity. You didn’t protect belief at the expense of judgment.
You clarified what kind of test is actually happening in each case—and once you do that, most of the smoke clears. This absolutely adds to the discussion. If anyone engages it seriously, they’ll have to engage your distinctions, not slogans.

Philo—thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully. In fact I think you’ve captured the even more clearly than I managed to in my stream of consciousness post.

Your line that “grace is not a moral eraser” really hits home regarding the straight and crooked line question. It doesn’t erase the relationship between conscience and command, and refuses to allow ambiguity to become permission.

Edited to add: It might be too much to condense this into biblical admonition from James and Paul, but it occurred to me that we might have been circling around something they addressed.

James makes a statement that seems relevant here: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God.’” The implication I’d assert is that morally prohibited acts cannot be redefined as obedience by appeal to a command from God. When Joseph does that, his move is to rename temptation as obedience or faith.

I also thought of Paul, who rejects the logic of “doing evil that good may come.” Joseph’s appeal to Abraham reflects similar renaming—morally prohibited acts become obedience rather than as failures met by grace.

[huckelberry]

Amongst other observations Limnor notes Abraham should have seen the command as morally wrong but that does not register in the story. Instead Abraham with grace trusts.

That is definitely in the story but I am always left troubled
I normally think of seeing the story as a step away from a cultural background where human sacrifice is seen as an appropriate thing at times. Abraham recognizes a duty and God corrects the expectation supplying animal sacrifice instead. This becomes culturally important but may not resolve tangle.

A day or so ago I watched Dan McClellan counter some apologetic honey coating of Deuteronomic rules of war
Dan refused to lose or hide that these are for wars of aggression beyond Israel border demanding slavery or complete death of all inhabitants. This death is in a term for sacrifice to God. This is human sacrifice at least in a realm of the imagination.

I think of highway 61, God said to Abraham kill me a son, ,WHAT? ... where do you want this killing done? Down highway 61. After discussion of various cheap deals including telephones which do not ring which all flow down highway 61 the matter of a next world War arises. The promoter says it can be easily done , we can set some bleachers out in the sun...

Have it out highway 61.

To my mind about the most devastating line Bob ever came upon.

[Limnor]

Huck, I appreciate this and agree we should not try and soften the text. I don’t think reading Abraham is supposed to be comfortable and attempting to explain away the violence in the Old Testament feels dishonest.

I think the intent here, though, is to resist the ideas that the stories are redefined into general models of obedience—that God writes straight with crooked lines. Whatever Abraham’s world assumed about sacrifice, the text never turns the act itself into a moral good and doesn’t make it a repeatable model. If the Abrahamic sacrifice were to become repeatable, something would have gone badly wrong.

And I think that is what Joseph’s appeal to Abraham tries to do—he changes an unrepeatable story into justification for his actions, and I don’t think the Bible licenses that.

[Gadianton]

I think the overriding problem is I'm still not sure how I want to interpret "straight vs. crooked." However, I did wake up with a manifestation powerful enough I deemed it worth responding to Limnor's post. This is a loose reply; still in free association stage with no great answers.

A layer to our question is raised in terms of storytelling and tropes. We must separate of the world of the characters and the world of the movie-goer. Everyone loves a story with an epic plot-twist or at least some uncertainty. The most ardent fundamentalists aren't opposed to a movies with moral dilemmas, plot twists, or uncertainty. Both Kim Jong Il and Dan Peterson have made movies that portray real crisis and uncertainty for the characters. What makes it fundamentalism is the obvious ways the movies are meant to be interpreted. Think about a story like M. Night Shyamalan' The Sixth Sense. This might be the pinnacle achievement of fundamentalism, because in order to provide an epic plot twist with the most punch possible, the meaning must be tightly controlled every step of the way. Kim Jong Il struggled with the problem with the blandness of didactic cinema. He wanted to make a good movie just like Dan does. The most obvious deficiencies are in execution, but we can imagine M. Night Shyamalan taking over and possibly succeeding at a film with all kinds of uncertainty for the characters, but in a stunning twist that few anticipate but everyone sees after the fact, the young woman sacrifices herself for the dear leader just as always. Our hearts are racing throughout but at the end, the message is clear: follow the prophet. So in my mind, MG's ideal movie is one that portrays all kinds of confusion and excitement for the characters, but no matter how bad they have it, for the viewer, the Church is known to be true. The lines are crooked as hell for the characters but straight for the viewer.

Limnor's confusion/opacity/temptation are brilliant suggestions and he should consider the ministry himself. The problem with the Abraham story is that it's existential. We have no idea what was meant by it, and it has possibly been changed more than once. Philo's point about it being the most commented on story in the Bible betrays that it's unlikely to have a single interpretation. I did some reading comparing the Abraham story to Shakespeare's King Lear, which superficially is a study of the Rolex and the fake; not that Shakespeare is fake, but Abraham demonstrates the pinnacle of Godly love and true moral dilemma while Shakespeare's tragedy is a sophisticated bastardized version with fake Biblical tests. But maybe that isn't so simple?

Getting back to IHAQ's pointed question about telling the difference between the real thing and the fake. I take this question in terms of economy. If we can't tell the difference, then is the real thing worth it?

In terms of moral lesson, I think the gold standard judged by economy is in fact the golden rule. Many cultures have stumbled upon the idea. As a codified instruction, it's very simple to understand and implement and virtually impossible to bastardize. It's not perfect, it can't answer a whole lot of questions, but in terms of the amount of good it can accomplish when contrasted with the ways it might be misunderstood and bring evil, it's on rock solid ground. To boot, it even avoids making people robots with decision procedures that tell them exactly how to act in a given situation. It earned its name. Major bang for the buck for God to give the golden rule.

When I discussed polygamy with the apologists, they're always walking it back, it was just this "thing" that was practiced for "reasons" and it's done now forever so let's forget about it. In terms of economy, it's the mud standard. Assuming God instructed a few people for reasons too complicated to say, as personal tests and we don't have the full story, the externality is massive. Anything from the way the wives themselves had to suffer, to the men who couldn't have wives now, to the fact that it looks a lot like any other cult where the top dog is gifted all the women, to the fact that copycats have outnumbered the real thing in terms of bastardized polygamous relationships vs. authorized by breakoff sects, to the fact that polygamy has tarnished the Church's reputation indefinitely. God got very little bang for the buck when he introduce polygamy. The Chapel Mormon version, in fact, makes a great deal more sense than the apologist version, which says that the Saints aren't ready for it, and one day it will be implemented again. To me, it sure as hell better be the supreme rule of the Gods in order to justify all the problems it caused.

[sock puppet]

To get a temple recommend, make covenants and stand in proxy for those already dead, the LDS church imposes higher standards than God apparently required of Joseph Smith to be the 'prophet of the restoration.' Ha ha ha.

[Limnor]

Gad wrote: I think the overriding problem is I'm still not sure how I want to interpret "straight vs. crooked."

I don’t think you have to limit yourself to a single interpretation—and what’s interesting to me is you intuitively know that and even spell it out yourself, which makes it hard to understand why you’d put pressure on there having to be a single authoritative answer.

But I’m learning something about worldviews—is interpretive authority something that comes with being a Mormon? That’s not something I dwell on or even consider. I care less about what the authoritative answer is, than whether the explanation is consistent across the scriptures and resonates with me, helps me grow—either in faith or in how I treat my fellow human.

So on to the movie—at first I wondered who the filmmaker and director for the movie were—did you mean God? Joseph? Or is it a self-generated and interpreted movie?

I settled on you meant the problem isn’t that God writes the story—it’s that the institution interprets the story and tells the audience the ending in advance, and then calls that obedience. Of course this situation—confusion for the believer being allowed, but never for the institution—becomes hard to sustain when revelation changes or even reverses itself.

Gad wrote: So in my mind, MG's ideal movie is one that portrays all kinds of confusion and excitement for the characters, but no matter how bad they have it, for the viewer, the Church is known to be true. The lines are crooked as hell for the characters but straight for the viewer.

This line was interesting—crooked for characters but straight for viewers—I interpreted that as being related to having the authoritative answer already explained to the viewer, but would seek confirmation from you that this is what you meant.

Gad wrote: Philo's point about it being the most commented on story in the Bible betrays that it's unlikely to have a single interpretation.

This was part of the intuitive bit I referenced above. I agree there are many different points of view about the Abrahamic sacrifice, but what I think is most important is which one makes the most sense—to you—when taken across the whole of revealed scripture?

Gad wrote: In terms of moral lesson, I think the gold standard judged by economy is in fact the golden rule. Many cultures have stumbled upon the idea. As a codified instruction, it's very simple to understand and implement and virtually impossible to bastardize. It's not perfect, it can't answer a whole lot of questions, but in terms of the amount of good it can accomplish when contrasted with the ways it might be misunderstood and bring evil, it's on rock solid ground. To boot, it even avoids making people robots with decision procedures that tell them exactly how to act in a given situation. It earned its name. Major bang for the buck for God to give the golden rule.

When I discussed polygamy with the apologists, they're always walking it back, it was just this "thing" that was practiced for "reasons" and it's done now forever so let's forget about it. In terms of economy, it's the mud standard. Assuming God instructed a few people for reasons too complicated to say, as personal tests and we don't have the full story, the externality is massive. Anything from the way the wives themselves had to suffer, to the men who couldn't have wives now, to the fact that it looks a lot like any other cult where the top dog is gifted all the women, to the fact that copycats have outnumbered the real thing in terms of bastardized polygamous relationships vs. authorized by breakoff sects, to the fact that polygamy has tarnished the Church's reputation indefinitely. God got very little bang for the buck when he introduce polygamy. The Chapel Mormon version, in fact, makes a great deal more sense than the apologist version, which says that the Saints aren't ready for it, and one day it will be implemented again. To me, it sure as hell better be the supreme rule of the Gods in order to justify all the problems it caused.

The economy view very much works here—the golden rule works because it results in so much moral good without requiring interpretive control, or institutional authority. Polygamy produced a great deal of harm and was the product of institutional authoritative interpretive control. If God’s commands result in that harm and can’t be distinguished from cult behavior except by authority claims, then—economically—they fail. But even then you’d have to distinguish between what Joseph said, what God said, and what Joseph said God said.

So back to the movie—stories can contain risk or confusion, but in MGs movie, the audience is never allowed to evaluate and determine that maybe obedience itself could be the wrong move.

As to being a minister, I think every believer should be prepared to think through and develop their faith and convey that meaning to others. Iron sharpens iron is the biblical saying.

[Limnor]

I don’t think you have to limit yourself to a single interpretation—and what’s interesting to me is you intuitively know that and even spell it out yourself, which makes it hard to understand why you’d put pressure on there having to be a single authoritative answer.

This didn’t come out quite like I intended.

What I meant was Huck provided one interpretation, that God uses fallen people to bring about good, but MG seems to say God uses crooked commands to bring about straightness.

Neither of these have to be the single authoritative answer.

[Gadianton]

I don’t think you have to limit yourself to a single interpretation...

Before delving into the related questions, you're right, I wasn't consistent here. I Do think it might be beyond interpretive control to say what straight vs. crooked means, however, I do think we might figure something out about the mind that suggests the model. What did MG mean? It's one of those things he has a sense for but can't quite put his finger on, and we have a great sense that it's an outright apologetic to get the church out of any sticky situation after the fact and always special pleading for the church. But it is quite possible in my mind that it is a true general principle, but apologists mostly gravitate toward the useful part for their leaders. Even some of MG's impulses suggest it could be something more than an apologetic, he just must reach beyond himself, into the darkness, and hope there is light yet up the way.

Compare it to the problem of evil, are "straight" and "crooked" simple substitutional terms for good and evil? If so, it's barely interesting, at least to me.

I take the intent to be coy, we don't want to say God commits evil, but evil is quite useful as opposition to build character, and so let's sneak in what we can get away with.

My mother used to say that Satan will tell 99 truths to tell one lie. Does that resonate as a truth to you? It's quite devious. Wouldn't we say the ultimate lie would be the one with the greatest setup -- a whole lot of truth before the rug is pulled out?

But I never heard her say the converse, is the converse true? Does God tell 99 lies in order to tell one truth? That doesn't sound right. We might want to ask, does God create a whole lot of crookedness in order to show that it is straight? It would seem like the more evil God uses as a setup, then how great the joy when the plot twist comes and good prevails.

The problem is that it's impossible to tell the difference between God and Satan, it could really be heaven or really be hell, or it could be the ultimate setup for a rug pull either way. The similarity sharpens both the evil for Satan and the good for God. Hence, Abraham sacrificing Isaac becomes the ultimate purity test but it's contextualized very well by the ultimate repugnancy of child sacrifices that were common with Abraham's neighbors, and also Shakespearean authoritarianism, as perverse loyalty tests.

If you would, Limnor, go ahead and pack this one up the hill for me.