God can write straight with crooked lines.

[bill4long]

For [Tolkien], faith is about trust in meaning, goodness, and purpose, not about winning arguments or proving things in a lab. He believed that stories, beauty, and moral truth point to realities that science alone cannot measure, but that still shape how people live and choose. Faith, in his view, is not a trick to help people sleep, but a way of seeing the world that helps people act with hope, courage, and mercy even when proof is incomplete. And he would strongly agree that faith should never be imposed by force, because belief only has value when it is freely chosen.

I make a strict demarcation between what people normally refer to as "faith" and trust. The kind of "faith" was I referring to is the kind of that papers over glaring evidententary holes. Such as when all the problems with the Book of Abraham are presented that demonstrate it's a fraud and the apologist downshift to "in the end it's about faith." I have absolutely no use for that kind of "faith." That kind is anti-Reality. When someone tells you that you need to paper over your doubts with "faith" - "doubt your doubts" - you know you're dealing with a con.

[bill4long]

Mormon god may be fattening us up for consumption at a godly feast,Maybe your point is that the theory doesn't matter because we have no way of knowing what God really wants? We have no way of knowing when we get to heaven that it's really heaven, and not an elaborate farm

[Gadianton]

I agree with this—using Job to prop up an authority structure seems off to me. I think the story of Job is similar to that of Abraham—not as a template or example for how intermediaries should “speak for God,” but a story that warns against doing so.

To be brutally honest, both function as tribal loyalty stories, in my opinion, for the sake of nothing more than supporting tribal loyalty; though in the case of Abraham, it's quite interesting in that it also seeks to differentiate Jehovah from competing gods. Yet again, I enjoy thoughtful interpretations from all perspectives, and you've got some good ones, if not the best I've seen. I did say that I don't think it's crooked line. But recall, in my world, I'm abstracting crooked-straightness from good and evil, and also consider either before the fact only, not after the fact. Authoritarianism is as straight line as it comes -- Divine Command Theory. The crookedness is never in principle, but after the fact. MG almost seems to agree with this but sees it as a feature, not a problem.

I admit I may not remember the Job story very well, it's incredibly hazy, and so I might end up changing my mind. But while Job was rich, I don't recall anything in the narrative that unrealistically set his expectations. For instance, if in real life, the real life Job got sick, his priest insisted on special prayers for healing and an emphasis was placed on his great riches as a function of his obedience, and if after prayers and more Job goodness, God instructed curses instead of blessings -- "let's see if he has the faith not to be healed" -- then it would be crooked line.

[Gadianton]

God allows Satan to destroy Job's life not because of any sin Job committed—God himself calls Job "blameless"—but simply to win a bet and protect His own "ego". It’s a terrible example of how to behave. Job is more an example of what we now call Stockholm Syndrome, rather that faith. And God’s behaviour in the tale is that of a narcissistic abuser. Great example MG, thanks for bringing it up.

I think the movie that might capture the absurdity the best was "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy.

[Gadianton]

Bill, that Twilight Zone episode was a classic for sure. One of the greats. Almost as good as the Chinese Restaurant.

--update: I had a quick conversation about Job with DeepSeek, and I must retract my claim that it is straight line. I underestimated its canonical status. I apologize for any confusion, have a nice day.

[Limnor]

Bill, that Twilight Zone episode was a classic for sure. One of the greats. Almost as good as the Chinese Restaurant.

--update: I had a quick conversation about Job with DeepSeek, and I must retract my claim that it is straight line. I underestimated its canonical status. I apologize for any confusion, have a nice day.

I think you had a good point and agree with the view about Job and, really, the entirety of the Pentateuch as serving to explain to Israel that they are a people under a particular God—stories that describe identify and loyalty and uniqueness. I think those explanations are more reasonable than describing moral templates, and the laws—as seen through a New Testament lens—serve to align a dependency on God through the temple.

Where it breaks down for me is that even if authoritarianism is “straight” within the stories, when intermediaries start reenacting Job or Abraham in real settings, the stories lose meaning (for me anyway). That’s where the crookedness shows up for me: not in the story’s internal logic, but in the hijacking of tribal myth-making with potential internal meaning as a guide to how to treat people to establishing authority over real people.

Simply, I don’t like it when those stories are given warrant to establish authority rather than serve as a warning to individuals about “doing unto others.”

From that view, as I see it, Job isn’t really about explaining suffering so much as exposing how wrong we are when we try. Job’s friends defend God by turning suffering into a moral equation—Job must deserve this somehow—but God rejects their explanations, saying they “have not spoken rightly” about Him. What God commends in Job isn’t passive acceptance, but his refusal to lie about reality.

At least that’s my take.

[Limnor]

Mormon god may be fattening us up for consumption at a godly feast,Maybe your point is that the theory doesn't matter because we have no way of knowing what God really wants? We have no way of knowing when we get to heaven that it's really heaven, and not an elaborate farm

(Gonna go find this on YouTube and watch it again)

[malkie]

Concerning the personal vs. non-personal distinction, I'm not sure that we even need to consider it.

While Mormonism portrays Mormon god as working for the benefit of mankind - presumably in terms of what we humans expect our "benefits" to look like, I contend that we have no right whatsoever to believe that. God's ways and purposes may be as far from our expectations as are the shepherd's purposes from the expectations of the sheep. Mormon god may be fattening us up for consumption at a godly feast,

Maybe your point is that the theory doesn't matter because we have no way of knowing what God really wants? We have no way of knowing when we get to heaven that it's really heaven, and not an elaborate farm. This is true, and yet another problem. Interestingly, believers have tried fix this. Descartes entire program was rooted in getting certainty about God to block considerations like these. It didn't work, so here we are.

Travis Taylor said on Skinwalker Ranch that an alien visited Joseph Smith. I mean, I have to hand it to him, if gold plates really were given to Joseph Smith by a being that can float in the air and pass through walls, then Mormonism was far more likely to have been started by an alien for whatever reasons than by "God".

Thanks, Dean R.

On the one hand you are perfectly justified in taking a step back, to look at my statement. On the other, I'm still at the point, as I think many of us are, of tacitly adding "for the sake of argument" when talking about god/God/Mormon-god. All we can do is attempt to create some order in the supposed characteristics of this hypothetical entity.

2 Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3 First, The idea that he actually exists.

4 Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

5 Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.—For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lectures on Faith-Lecture Third

I'm not convinced that the LDS church, or any other religion, has established the second of these things in such a way that "any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation", even if we were to grant that it has done the first. To satisfy the second requirement, I believe, would require a complete and consistent set of attributes. Without a lot of handwaving, I see the scriptures as pretty well ruling out that possibility.

[Limnor]

I'm not convinced that the LDS church, or any other religion, has established the second of these things in such a way that "any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation", even if we were to grant that it has done the first. To satisfy the second requirement, I believe, would require a complete and consistent set of attributes. Without a lot of handwaving, I see the scriptures as pretty well ruling out that possibility.

I’ve been thinking through what proselytizing actually is, and where the boundary lies between talking about biblical descriptions of God and faith versus making claims that demand concurrence .

Part of that reflection, as we’ve been discussing here, has been reading Abraham as a kind of one-time event, and I’m beginning to see Job as an additive lens on how we can interpret Abraham.

There’s a reading of Job that allows for an intentionally incomplete understanding—one that pushes back against the demand for complete understanding, and even warns that seeking that kind of completeness can lead us to “not speak rightly” about God, even when we think we’re being rigorous.

That leaves me wondering whether completeness is really what faith requires, or whether that expectation is something we project onto the text rather than derive from it. I’m also concerned—from a personal point of view—that such a permissive view is vulnerable to manipulation—even self-manipulation.

[Philo Sofee]

For [Tolkien], faith is about trust in meaning, goodness, and purpose, not about winning arguments or proving things in a lab. He believed that stories, beauty, and moral truth point to realities that science alone cannot measure, but that still shape how people live and choose. Faith, in his view, is not a trick to help people sleep, but a way of seeing the world that helps people act with hope, courage, and mercy even when proof is incomplete. And he would strongly agree that faith should never be imposed by force, because belief only has value when it is freely chosen.

I make a strict demarcation between what people normally refer to as "faith" and trust. The kind of "faith" was I referring to is the kind of that papers over glaring evidententary holes. Such as when all the problems with the Book of Abraham are presented that demonstrate it's a fraud and the apologist downshift to "in the end it's about faith." I have absolutely no use for that kind of "faith." That kind is anti-Reality. When someone tells you that you need to paper over your doubts with "faith" - "doubt your doubts" - you know you're dealing with a con.

Yeah, I think I agree entirely here, as would Tolkien, which means you have one of the greatest literatures of all existence on your side as well. Based on what I understand of Tolkien's "theology" in his legendarium, Tolkien’s idea of faith isn’t “believe anyway,” it’s “see clearly, then choose the good.” When faith is used to shut down questions or excuse deception, it stops being faith and becomes self-protection. Tolkien would say that truth must come first, because without truth, faith has nothing real to cling to.