God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Apparently there is a point made here that I have ignored. You're correct that the Sorites Paradox doesn't establish truth claims in the first place. I accept that. However, that doesn't mean it's useless to the believer, it merely means it functions differently than critics suggest. For believers who already have spiritual experiences confirming truth, Sorites explains why refined certainty is a process, not a binary conclusion."

When nefariously copying and pasting AI responses it is best not to leave the end quotation marks in place. Especially when you’ve hastily removed the opening ones.

You continue to demonstrate that you haven’t got the first clue what the Sorites Paradox is. It is not a process that gets to the truth of a matter by small steps. It’s a process by which “truth” is gradually eroded, a “grain” at a time, until you arrive at a falsehood due to flawed assumptions and a failure to acknowledge all the information. It’s about reaching a wrong conclusion due to absurd and incorrect thinking. So maybe it does apply to your belief in Mormonism after all.

It demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim it demonstrates.

Preponderance of evidence seems to be the antidote for the reverse-Sorites paradox device.

[malkie]

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?

2-3 days of thinking through this and just realized the analysis here reflects what I’ve finally arrived at as a conclusion.

I'm not sure that it's so simple. I think that faithful church members can distinguish between straight and crooked lines in just the same way as anyone else. However, the decision may have to be provisional, or at least readily subject to change, pending guidance from church leaders.

For the believer, I believe that the final straight / crooked and right / wrong decisions often have to be post hoc, in that members may feel that they have to act against their own "inner light" on instructions from leaders - the outsourcing of conscience to authority, in some cases obeying even when they know that their actions are not morally justified.

One example of this practice came from a faithful church member who used to post here. He was strongly in favour of LGBTQ+ rights, including the right of any two adult to marry each other regardless of sex/gender. However, when his Stake President asked him for a "substantial" contribution to the LDS Prop8 fight in California, he didn't feel that he could refuse.

[Limnor]

2-3 days of thinking through this and just realized the analysis here reflects what I’ve finally arrived at as a conclusion.

I'm not sure that it's so simple. I think that faithful church members can distinguish between straight and crooked lines in just the same way as anyone else. However, the decision may have to be provisional, or at least readily subject to change, pending guidance from church leaders.

For the believer, I believe that the final straight / crooked and right / wrong decisions often have to be post hoc, in that members may feel that they have to act against their own "inner light" on instructions from leaders - the outsourcing of conscience to authority, in some cases obeying even when they know that their actions are not morally justified.

One example of this practice came from a faithful church member who used to post here. He was strongly in favour of LGBTQ+ rights, including the right of any two adult to marry each other regardless of sex/gender. However, when his Stake President asked him for a "substantial" contribution to the LDS Prop8 fight in California, he didn't feel that he could refuse.

Ok more thought required lol

So if moral judgment is provisional pending authoritative correction, the issue may not be completely centered on discernment, but the willingness to override conscience and redefine “right” after the fact.

[Gadianton]

If you are using a cheat code, you’ve established a rule and are no longer acting out of faith?

Yes and no. Abraham didn't have the story of somebody else in a similar situation that essentially told him what to do when faced with a command from God that contradicts previous commandments or promises. I'm suspending unbelief a bit as angel visits may not have been considered unusual.

In reality, there are no cheat codes, only acting as if one has a cheat code. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the religious framework is true. Assuming the framework, then yes, it significantly nullifies faith. In reality, no, obeying an authoritarian leader who pulls the Abraham card may be the definition of faith.

If you're curious about how my teacher responded, he told me my previous teacher was wrong. He said that K is often interpreted as promoting the religious life as the most authentic, which is of course how my Mormon teacher presented it, but he thought that's incorrect. He said all three are equal, not one is "better" than the other. His English was pretty broken, and so he kept answers short. I considered it a profound insight, as it's hard to believe K was the father of existentialism and not just a great apologist otherwise. I mean, if you're going to be religious, then you need to do it because you really are religious, it's not very authentic to try and be religious because K convinced you that it will make you superior to ethicals and aesthetes. To use it as a cheat code. My 2nd teacher's insight kills it as a cheat code (just like your insight that Abrahams test was a one-off would kill it as a cheat code). An authentic religious must be religious fully understanding it's just because that's who he is, not because the religious life is objectively superior to other lives, and in fact, being religious cannot be objectively better than being ethical or aesthete.

[huckelberry]

Abraham presents interesting angles to consider. I think MG is pursuing a simpler and more straightforward idea. He has his reasons to believe the church is true but there are conflicts and problems that appear to indicate otherwise. He realizes he does not know answers to all problems so must shelf them. Life and humans are messy and not always clear and honest. MG sees the question of how many beans make a pile as analogous to how many problems would be necessary for him to reverse his faith. He his not looking to get closer to faith or to make every thing clear. He is starting with his own clarity and wants to maintain his shelf.

I find I probably brought up Old Testament laws for war because it puts me in MG 's place. I find it easy to see much of Old Testament law as compiled social convention. it is made orderly and shapes a social identity. I see that as a place on a road of growth. I know I cannot see war rules in question that way. I am not able to erase the view that they are wrong and are precident for a long stream of Christian brutality and killing.

How many times has God asked us to recognize this crooked law and make our laws straight.

We need to improve clarity about when it is OK to go about killing people.

[Limnor]

If you are using a cheat code, you’ve established a rule and are no longer acting out of faith?

Yes and no. Abraham didn't have the story of somebody else in a similar situation that essentially told him what to do when faced with a command from God that contradicts previous commandments or promises. I'm suspending unbelief a bit as angel visits may not have been considered unusual.

In reality, there are no cheat codes, only acting as if one has a cheat code. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the religious framework is true. Assuming the framework, then yes, it significantly nullifies faith. In reality, no, obeying an authoritarian leader who pulls the Abraham card may be the definition of faith.

If you're curious about how my teacher responded, he told me my previous teacher was wrong. He said that K is often interpreted as promoting the religious life as the most authentic, which is of course how my Mormon teacher presented it, but he thought that's incorrect. He said all three are equal, not one is "better" than the other. His English was pretty broken, and so he kept answers short. I considered it a profound insight, as it's hard to believe K was the father of existentialism and not just a great apologist otherwise. I mean, if you're going to be religious, then you need to do it because you really are religious, it's not very authentic to try and be religious because K convinced you that it will make you superior to ethicals and aesthetes. To use it as a cheat code. My 2nd teacher's insight kills it as a cheat code (just like your insight that Abrahams test was a one-off would kill it as a cheat code). An authentic religious must be religious fully understanding it's just because that's who he is, not because the religious life is objectively superior to other lives, and in fact, being religious cannot be objectively better than being ethical or aesthete.

I think I’m with you so far. If faith only remains authentic when it’s non-repeatable, non-justifiable, and not objectively superior, then any attempt to ritualize it risks turning it into a set of rules that you follow because you accept the authority of another human’s interpretation. It is no longer authentic when you do that. Or maybe better—it risks becoming inauthentic when you do that.

What I’m thinking through is whether institutions can ever avoid that result, and I’ll ask you to forgive my next paragraph, because this is where it gets extremely interesting to me, and reflects a personal view that I’ve held for some time and think is the real core of the Christian life.

The Apostle Paul’s explanation seems very near. He repeatedly references “Christ in you,” and is insistent on liberty in Christ reflected in love as the outcome, and presents an almost ferocious defense against what he called judaizers, which reads to me like a very strong warning against succumbing to the temptation to “place yourself back under the law” to attain righteousness—whether through rituals or other legalistic means, perhaps even extending to authoritative institutions. He seems to be saying that once faith hardens into legalistic or ritualistic practice, it ceases to be faith at all.

But even Paul’s view might require some sort of institution to preserve that freedom. So maybe the question is can institutions coexist with the kind of authenticity you’re describing without ruining it?

[Gadianton]

Abraham presents interesting angles to consider. I think MG is pursuing a simpler and more straightforward idea. He has his reasons to believe the church is true but there are conflicts and problems that appear to indicate otherwise. He realizes he does not know answers to all problems so must shelf them. Life and humans are messy and not always clear and honest. MG sees the question of how many beans make a pile as analogous to how many problems would be necessary for him to reverse his faith. He his not looking to get closer to faith or to make every thing clear. He is starting with his own clarity and wants to maintain his shelf.

I think that's a near perfect summary. It's not a problem until considered it's the exact same summary of everyone else looking to stay in the boat of any authoritarian regime anywhere.

[Gadianton]

I think I’m with you so far. If faith only remains authentic when it’s non-repeatable, non-justifiable, and not objectively superior, then any attempt to ritualize it risks turning it into a set of rules that you follow because you accept the authority of another human’s interpretation. It is no longer authentic when you do that. Or maybe better—it risks becoming inauthentic when you do that.

Yes, you even synthesized my version with what others on the thread have said about accepting authority. We also reach a fork in the road between the problem of faith, and a more general problem of postmodern philosophers trying to avoid rules but getting helplessly trapped in them because humans think in terms of rules. For this thread we're only talking faith and religion, but just so you know this becomes a central problem of philosophy in general.

What I’m thinking through is whether institutions can ever avoid that result, and I’ll ask you to forgive my next paragraph, because this is where it gets extremely interesting to me, and reflects a personal view that I’ve held for some time and think is the real core of the Christian life.

The Apostle Paul’s explanation seems very near. He repeatedly references “Christ in you,” and is insistent on liberty in Christ reflected in love as the outcome, and presents an almost ferocious defense against what he called judaizers, which reads to me like a very strong warning against succumbing to the temptation to “place yourself back under the law” to attain righteousness—whether through rituals or other legalistic means, perhaps even extending to authoritative institutions. He seems to be saying that once faith hardens into legalistic or ritualistic practice, it ceases to be faith at all.

I think this is a very good example.

But even Paul’s view might require some sort of institution to preserve that freedom. So maybe the question is can institutions coexist with the kind of authenticity you’re describing without ruining it?

Right, the solution requires a herd of cats. Because that doesn't work, spirit-guided individualist organizations end up at square one looking like their predecessors.

[Limnor]

Right, the solution requires a herd of cats. Because that doesn't work, spirit-guided individualist organizations end up at square one looking like their predecessors.

Putting religion aside, I’ve been thinking about the Federalist Papers, Hobbes, and Locke as other models. I’d say each of these examples consider crookedness as something that, while not going away, can be best managed

[bill4long]

Right, the solution requires a herd of cats. Because that doesn't work, spirit-guided individualist organizations end up at square one looking like their predecessors.

Putting religion aside, I’ve been thinking about the Federalist Papers, Hobbes, and Locke as other models. I’d say each of these examples consider crookedness as something that, while not going away, can be best managed

Brownian Motion

Controlled/useful randomness, that is, randonness within boundries, going on within every cell of everyone's body.

Crooked (randomness), straight (boundries).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2582900/

Food for thought