God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

Again for reference, here is the first two versus of D&C132

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

So that's either the Lord explicitly telling Joseph to commit adultery, or it's Joseph making things up to justify his adulterous intentions. Because plural marriage was illegal in the USA at the time, all of Joseph's plural relationships were illegal, and therefore adulterous.

[I Have Questions]

God can enter into already crooked cultural, psychological, and institutional conditions and regulate or limit them without endorsing their crooked aspects as His own moral character.

I don't think MG will be able to explain what this group of words means, nor provide any specific examples that demonstrate whatever it is he thinks he's saying.

[Limnor]

You're confusing the issue I'm trying to clarify. Are crooked lines Joseph's weaknesses, and was polygamy a creation by Joseph that God tolerated for a time, or was polygamy God's idea, a higher law?



Saying it over and over again while refusing to clarify what you mean, even when others are doing most of the work for you, is much like lying. You aren't telling lies, are you, MG?

Was polygamy an invention by Joseph born out from his weaknesses of womanizing, lying, and controlling, or was it really a divine command by God? Perhaps it was both, it was a command by God but Joseph made mistakes with it?

If you admit polygamy was in any way dictated by God, then you've entered the trap. You've admitted that God himself authors crooked lines, as opposed to working with lines crooked for reasons initially outside of his control.

God chose to work within a very crooked historical situation, which included inherited biblical polygamy (which Joseph had encountered in his studies), frontier patriarchy (and even ours today as we place blame or judgement), and Joseph’s own psychology (we are not privy to that).

It might also be well to remember that imagining God being positively willing to condone every specific hurtful decision as if it were ideal is a bit silly. Working within the framework of agency does have its drawbacks.

As for the charge of lying, I’m simply trying to describe how a believer can acknowledge moral problems in our history without collapsing everything wholeheartedly into either “God authored every abuse” or “there was nothing of God in it at all.” You may still see that as incoherent, but that’s the tension a believer lives with. I see and acknowledge the crookedness, I don’t canonize Joseph’s sins, and I still maintain the the very real possibility that God was at work in and through a very flawed story.

This matches up quite well with how we observe the world working in real time everyday and every week/year. I wouldn't expect things to have been all that much different back in Joseph's day.

Finally, when I say “God can write straight with crooked lines,” I am not claiming that every controversial practice in our history was a pristine “higher law,” nor that every action of Joseph Smith was divinely micromanaged.

It's fairly obvious that that wasn't the case.

Regards,
MG

I’m not sure who this is trying to convince.

[MG 2.0]

God chose to work within a very crooked historical situation, which included inherited biblical polygamy (which Joseph had encountered in his studies), frontier patriarchy (and even ours today as we place blame or judgement), and Joseph’s own psychology (we are not privy to that).

It might also be well to remember that imagining God being positively willing to condone every specific hurtful decision as if it were ideal is a bit silly. Working within the framework of agency does have its drawbacks.

As for the charge of lying, I’m simply trying to describe how a believer can acknowledge moral problems in our history without collapsing everything wholeheartedly into either “God authored every abuse” or “there was nothing of God in it at all.” You may still see that as incoherent, but that’s the tension a believer lives with. I see and acknowledge the crookedness, I don’t canonize Joseph’s sins, and I still maintain the the very real possibility that God was at work in and through a very flawed story.

This matches up quite well with how we observe the world working in real time everyday and every week/year. I wouldn't expect things to have been all that much different back in Joseph's day.

Finally, when I say “God can write straight with crooked lines,” I am not claiming that every controversial practice in our history was a pristine “higher law,” nor that every action of Joseph Smith was divinely micromanaged.

It's fairly obvious that that wasn't the case.

Regards,
MG

I’m not sure who this is trying to convince.

What do you think I’m trying to convince you or anyone else of?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What does it really mean in Ephesians 4:6 to say that God is in and through “all things”?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

God chose to work within a very crooked historical situation, which included inherited biblical polygamy (which Joseph had encountered in his studies), frontier patriarchy (and even ours today as we place blame or judgement), and Joseph’s own psychology (we are not privy to that).

It might also be well to remember that imagining God being positively willing to condone every specific hurtful decision as if it were ideal is a bit silly. Working within the framework of agency does have its drawbacks.

As for the charge of lying, I’m simply trying to describe how a believer can acknowledge moral problems in our history without collapsing everything wholeheartedly into either “God authored every abuse” or “there was nothing of God in it at all.” You may still see that as incoherent, but that’s the tension a believer lives with. I see and acknowledge the crookedness, I don’t canonize Joseph’s sins, and I still maintain the the very real possibility that God was at work in and through a very flawed story.

This matches up quite well with how we observe the world working in real time everyday and every week/year. I wouldn't expect things to have been all that much different back in Joseph's day.

Finally, when I say “God can write straight with crooked lines,” I am not claiming that every controversial practice in our history was a pristine “higher law,” nor that every action of Joseph Smith was divinely micromanaged.

It's fairly obvious that that wasn't the case.

Regards,
MG

I’m not sure who this is trying to convince.

[Limnor]

I’m not sure who this is trying to convince.

What do you think I’m trying to convince you or anyone else of?

Regards,
MG

I don’t think you’re trying to convince anyone of a conclusion—I think you’re trying to explain to yourself why it works for you.

[bill4long]

It's adultery unless God commands it otherwise -- that which is wrong in one situation is right in another. Higher plane geometry. God as the author of crooked lines. D&C 132 makes it clear that God authored polygamy. That doesn't mean every choice Joseph made was sanctified, but it does allow the very counterintuitive principle that a married woman is obligated to have sex with another man if God commands it. This is a crooked line principle. If God authored D&C 132, he's the author of crooked lines.

Does this mean the Mormon God is a divine crook?

Apparently, the Second Anointing™ carries over into the Exalted State™, where the gods can do any damn thing they want without fear of consequence. They even get to murder too unlike mortals.

More likely the Mormon God doesn't exist and Joe was the crook. But we already know that: Kirtland Safety Society. "God" told Joe to do it. And Joe and Sidney operated it exactly like any common scam artist would. And like the good crooks they were, they tried to completely shift the blame to Warren Parrish, but that doesn't hold up. (See Dan Vogel's excellent, Charisma Under Pressure.)

[Limnor]

What does it really mean in Ephesians 4:6 to say that God is in and through “all things”?

Regards,
MG

Paul is talking about unity and indwelling, not retroactive moral justification.

[MG 2.0]

What do you think I’m trying to convince you or anyone else of?

Regards,
MG

I don’t think you’re trying to convince anyone of a conclusion—I think you’re trying to explain to yourself why it works for you.

Why what works for me? God?

Essentially, that’s what this thread is discussing. I wasn’t aware that we had reached any conclusions. I, for one, am simply mulling around the idea/concept of how God works in the world.

The fact is, many folks have tossed God out because they haven’t seen God working in the world. Is it a crime to look for Him as He works in and through all things?

Even as a thought experiment?

I would guess you have an opinion regarding Ephesians 4:6? It’s a BIG idea, right?

Personally, I think there is a direct correlation/connection between this concept and the OP. I’ve been trying to lay it out but at times all I’m seeing is literally, “Nothing to see here…moving on”.

Or, as has happened recently, being accused of not even knowing what I’m talking about.

I will again exit the thread for now to see where it goes. I’m taking up too much space and might be sucking out the air in regards to what others might have to say at this point.

Happy Sunday.

Regards,
MG