God can write straight with crooked lines.

[huckelberry]

Gents, if I may proffer a starting point for agreeing what the phrase “God writes straight with crooked lines” means…

There is an old saying, which some attribute to St. Teresa of Avila, which says that God writes straight with crooked lines. It means that though our human life often seems to be so full of weaknesses and mistakes, conflicts and confusions, God can achieve His purpose.

I’m not suggesting that this is what MG means by the term - I doubt you will ever get to the bottom of that. So perhaps you’re better off setting the terms of reference yourselves.

I think Questions has supplied a good simple reference point which can help this discussion. Perhaps the number of different angles touched makes this thread both interesting and unwieldy.

St Teresa version has a clarity of intent. I do not think it is what MG is thinking of. He at least for himself is supporting the idea God directing authoritive instruction but with the twists of human limitation and error. I think Gad has done a good job of pointing out problems of this idea. I might have a piece of sympathy for this idea of limited guidance from God but see that guidance as widely spread with humans not centered on one fallible authority. I think Gad has explained how this idea of God using human error strongly tends toward a democratization of authority.

Clearly MG is not aiming to believe that we all ha e a share in hearing God's lead. He is thinking of one true church lead by one fallible leader who is the best despite errors. He has not said anything that would incline me to agree. I notice others here expressing a frustration with MG not answering specifics on how he can swallow the errors. It crossed my mind that perhaps it is largely a result of some people desiring a one authority enough that they are willing to just accept the errors. It is a similar emotional makeup as the people following Trump and willing to brush aside his negative aspects.

A democratization of authority is sometimes scary.

.....
This thread has brought up the problem moral clarity in relation to war (amalikites) this is an interesting tangent perhaps inviting a separate thread.

[Gadianton]

Google it and see how it was coined by Teresa of Ávila, a nun who lived in the 1500's

Even nicer find! sorry I missed it.

[Limnor]

This thread has brought up the problem moral clarity in relation to war (amalikites) this is an interesting tangent perhaps inviting a separate thread.

Perhaps. What was your interest? The comment spun off from a statement that the Mormon god and the God of the Bible are not the same with regard to moral commands—did you have thoughts you would like to share?

There were comments about creedal Christianity that could be explored as well, but my assumption was those topics had been discussed here before.

[I Have Questions]

Yes, it's a good paragraph. But unclear about what God is trying to achieve, specifically.

Yes, exactly. In my experience, most (non-Mormon) people who are religious are willing to leave it at that, they express belief but don't feel the need to pin down a literal human-like behavior they can ascribe to a supernatural being. They just don't. As an example, Mormons are very specific about the attributes of heaven--three kingdoms, what covenants are required to enter where, which spouse and family you will live with based on who is sealed to whom and when, who can reproduce with whom (or with how many 'whom's if you're male), who can visit whom across which kingdoms (you can visit down but not up), what activities are allowed, what body parts will be resurrected, etc. If I asked my catholic relatives to explain what heaven will be like with that level of detail, I imagine their response would be a confused 'why do you ask?'

Maybe I can go a little further and suggest we all just accept the definition of “God’s purpose” being simply that we become “better”; spouses, children, siblings, neighbours, friends, citizens, employees etc. and leave it at that. Avoid going down the specificity hole that Mormonism has dug for itself.

I think it’s fairly well accepted that we, as humans, mostly learn from experience. We tend to learn more from adversity than we do from success. So if adversity in general can be seen as the crooked line, and improved humanity can be seen as straight writing, then perhaps that’s what Teresa of Ávila had in mind when she coined the phrase MG has latched onto.

But unfortunately there’s no way to show that God is behind our lived experience of learning from adversity. It could simply be how an organism survives and grows and proliferates on planet earth, and humans have been relatively quick to learn the lessons of experiential adversity. Religionists hijack the process of learning and label it “God’s Purpose” in a drawing targets around bullet holes in barn doors kind of way.

[Gadianton]

But unfortunately there’s no way to show that God is behind our lived experience of learning from adversity. It could simply be how an organism survives and grows and proliferates on planet earth, and humans have been relatively quick to learn the lessons of experiential adversity.

I think Marcus makes a brilliant point about the problem of trying to explain it, and the absurd contortions Mormons tie themselves into trying to explain it, such as in the "wrong road" talk. There might be wisdom in quiet acceptance vs. always coming up with a desperate and annoying answer. Mormons even go so far as to have patriarchal blessings rescue the conditions of disabled children by making them fallen soldiers of the war in heaven, where their kid was so powerful that Satan would carry out his grudge in full force if the child were more capable in earth life. Your disabled child as a Catholic is just due to bad luck, sorry, but mine is because he was a general on the front lines fighting Satan's angels in the pre-existence. There are ways in which Mormonism creates the everything-is-about-me universe beyond that of other religions.

My first thought to go against Teresa was to suggest Calvinism. Okay, Teresa, suppose you're predestined for hell such that "God's plan" will work out just as you claim, it just doesn't involve your life ever getting explained in a way that's better, but getting explained in a way that's a whole lot worse. Part of the point to MG is that in a world of crooked lines, and accepting crooked lines, you're not really accepting them as crooked unless you accept the possibility that the straight version doesn't end with an apologetic for your church. He's just getting in front of the problem pretending there is real ambiguity in order to say that ambiguity is a feature, therefore, he doesn't need to answer it.

My second thought about Teresa, however, was holy crap, she just might be okay going to hell if that's God's will! The problem with quiet acceptance is we can't really define in advance what it is that you're accepting. Perhaps the 27th wife of Brigham Young was quiet about it, but the 28th wife came up with trite arguments to justify it. Well, it's possible that bad as the arguments might be, they demonstrate the tension, the uneasiness, and the 28th wife might be the one more likely to escape.

Maybe I can go a little further and suggest we all just accept the definition of “God’s purpose” being simply that we become “better”; spouses, children, siblings, neighbours, friends, citizens, employees etc. and leave it at that.

On the one hand, it avoids MG desperation, but on the other, wife 27 might just take that advice and be the best wife 27 she could. Perhaps for her circumstances, whose to say that would be wrong, but it would be hard to fault wife 28 for being a terrible 28th wife and trying to escape. MG certainly doesn't represent the only conservative Mormon voice. I had a bishop who absolutely loathed gospel intellectualism. He was also my seminary teacher for one year. He didn't like my dad because dad was a student of the mysteries. This bishop had lots of cutesy things to say that always just came back to simple "faith and repentance". He was quite good in his role -- not dumb by any means. During my mission interview, my interest in Nibley got brought up and he was very understanding. He got past it by telling a story of somebody he knew who was gospel scholar with a massive library, he was the ward intellectual and all that. Well, years down the road, he just stopped. And over the years, he quietly gave away his books. He wasn't stupid, he knows where this leads more often than not. I'm sure he knew where it would lead for me, and I'm pretty sure he blamed my dad for it, although in so many words. I know they had a clash or two about what to do about me. And my bishop, unfortunately, was more right than he was wrong.

Just as this board would have stoned my dad if he were to ever post here, if I were to post the couple of papers I wrote in college using existentialism like MG, Kierkegaard and whatnot to justify and expound upon Mormonism, I wouldn't be received very well and that stuff was pretty embarrassing and I doubt I kept any of it anyway. But, Had I not gone through that stage, then I'd likely still be Mormon. Had I taken my bishop's advice I wouldn't have overthought it, and tried to be a good ward member and do my thing like Teresa suggested.

[Limnor]

It just clicked for me that the nuance here isn’t specifically whether suffering “can” produce growth, but whether it’s expected to count toward advancement or compensation.

In my view, suffering is endured but not as part of a rank or advancement system, even though growth may happen. It also leaves room for protest. In the Navy, I’ve heard it expressed (lightly) as “sometimes cookies, sometimes crumbs.”

Very interesting.

[malkie]

It just clicked for me that the nuance here isn’t specifically whether suffering “can” produce growth, but whether it’s expected to count toward advancement or compensation.

In my view, suffering is endured but not as part of a rank or advancement system, even though growth may happen. It also leaves room for protest. In the Navy, I’ve heard it expressed (lightly) as “sometimes cookies, sometimes crumbs.”

Very interesting.

Perhaps it's just my Scottish Presbyterian upbringing speaking, but I've generally regarded any virtue that comes easily as worth less than one that had to be suffered for.

After I joined the church I was quite appalled at the behaviour of many of the members. However, I came to realise, slowly, that I had an advantage in not finding it difficult to do certain things that they struggled with, and was perhaps judging them from a wrong point of view.

I remember telling someone about a cashier in a store giving me too much change, which I returned right away - no need to think about right & wrong, or weigh costs & benefits. They thought I should have kept the extra money as a "blessing". From my PoV I knew that someone, probably the cashier, would have to account for the difference, and might even be penalised in some way for me to be "blessed".

On another occasion I was going on a train trip with a member who showed me their forged monthly pass, and said that I didn't need to buy them a ticket. I bought the ticket anyway, because I refused to be a party to their dishonesty. That was easy for me, but not so for them. As it happened, an inspector came on the train and asked to see our tickets. He would almost certainly have detected the fake pass. For someone who was studying for a career in a position of trust, being caught in this kind of dishonesty could have ended their plans.

I admit that I felt pretty self-righteous for a while, until I thought a bit more about the things that were not so easy for me. If I recall correctly, The Screwtape Letters helped me with that process.

[malkie]

I just realised that I didn't "close the loop" in my previous comment. So, although I appear to have been more honest than a number of members of the church that I encountered, I don't see that as a great virtue, because I didn't have to fight for it - it came naturally to me.

[Limnor]

I just realised that I didn't "close the loop" in my previous comment. So, although I appear to have been more honest than a number of members of the church that I encountered, I don't see that as a great virtue, because I didn't have to fight for it - it came naturally to me.

What I hear in your stories is a commitment to integrity whether anyone’s watching or not, and without expectation of reward.

[Limnor]

My first thought to go against Teresa was to suggest Calvinism. Okay, Teresa, suppose you're predestined for hell such that "God's plan" will work out just as you claim, it just doesn't involve your life ever getting explained in a way that's better, but getting explained in a way that's a whole lot worse. Part of the point to MG is that in a world of crooked lines, and accepting crooked lines, you're not really accepting them as crooked unless you accept the possibility that the straight version doesn't end with an apologetic for your church. He's just getting in front of the problem pretending there is real ambiguity in order to say that ambiguity is a feature, therefore, he doesn't need to answer it.

My second thought about Teresa, however, was holy crap, she just might be okay going to hell if that's God's will! The problem with quiet acceptance is we can't really define in advance what it is that you're accepting.

I can’t tell if you are looking for an explanation for this from a Christian point of view, but I’m thinking there may be room for discussion. I’m wondering if part of what you are saying is due to the idea that “salvation from sin and death,” and ultimately, hell, just doesn’t carry the same weight in Mormonism that it does in other Christian concepts. Salvation from sin and death is already an infinite good that doesn’t need further accounting to balance out suffering or disappointment. If bad things happen, the meaning of salvation doesn’t go away—it just hurts.

I’m starting to think a lot of this depends on the starting point. If the problem is a fallen nature in need of redemption, then grace really can be enough and suffering doesn’t have to count as points. But if the problem is an undeveloped nature meant to progress, then suffering contributes, which creates demand for explanation.