I actually sincerely want to know from who did MG get his idea concerning Sorites and truth of Mormonism from... I am seriously curious who would set him on this track of thinking...
A few years ago on a podcast I heard a discussion of a book called, “Black and White Thinking-The Burden of a Binary Brain in a Complex World” by Kevin Dutton.
The ideas expressed in the book made a large impression on me. The author spends time digging into the Sorites Paradox. I discussed the book and its ideas on this board at the time. I can’t remember how these ideas were received then. They probably weren’t welcome I would guess.
I’ve thought about it a lot since that time and how these ideas/principles fit into a world of ambiguity and uncertainty.
Your first sentence is just as important. I think I've mentioned in the past that the bishop will never question you if you say you received a witness that the Book of Mormon is true.
I’ve been thinking about the role of testimony itself. I didn’t realize that the “Fast and Testimony” ritual was a kind of requirement, I had thought that it was a voluntary event—though maybe it is voluntary, with an unstated and underlying pressure to perform the ceremony. Could you please explain the Bishop’s role in the bearing of a testimony?
A biblical-type testimony—“confess that Jesus is Lord”—makes sense to me because I can explain it as a statement about trust and relationship. It doesn’t function as a falsifiable historical claim. Creedal recitations, by saying “I believe,” seem to leave room for doubt.
The thing about applying that confessional language to saying “I know that a book is factually true” reads more like a “tell” to me that something strange is happening, though to be fair the same could be said about the biblical-type confession or a creedal recitation. Maybe the “tell” is because there isn’t really an accepted space for “I’m not sure, but I’m still here.”
I’ve thought about the LDS testimony in terms of serving as a replacement for a creed or confession, in spite of Joseph’s explicit rejection of such things. If that’s the case, saying “I know” speaks more to the role of binding people together than the actual epistemic belief of the confessor.
Today is our Fast and Testimony Meeting. It is typically on the first Sunday each month. The meeting is about 50 minutes long and it is ‘open mike’ where people can simply go up and express their feelings about how the Gospel of Jesus Christ has made their lives better within the context of their families, their personal struggles, their understanding of the purpose of life and the Savior’s Atonement, etc.
I actually sincerely want to know from who did MG get his idea concerning Sorites and truth of Mormonism from... I am seriously curious who would set him on this track of thinking...
A few years ago on a podcast I heard a discussion of a book called, “Black and White Thinking-The Burden of a Binary Brain in a Complex World” by Kevin Dutton.
The ideas expressed in the book made a large impression on me. The author spends time digging into the Sorites Paradox. I discussed the book and its ideas on this board at the time. I can’t remember how these ideas were received then. They probably weren’t welcome I would guess.
I’ve thought about it a lot since that time and how these ideas/principles fit into a world of ambiguity and uncertainty.
Regards,
MG
Dutton misuses the Sorites Paradox. Which might explain your misuse of it on this thread. Maybe do some more research to see where you (and Dutton) are going wrong.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
MG wrote:God writing straight with crooked lines causes some moral dilemmas and conundrums for critics and unbelievers, more so than for believers I think. I'm fairly comfortable with it personally.
I see, quite clearly, that you're very confident in your beliefs. What dilemma does "God writing straight with crooked lines" cause for a critic? It's an eye-popping pronouncement, given that your entire case; Kierkegaards case especially, rests upon the dilemma to sharpen faith. The dilemmas -- the conundrums are created expressly for the believer. It doesn't even make theoretical sense for God to create a conundrum for the critic because then the critic has an excuse. Critics are damned for "denying the sun in noon day". Not because they're confused by God's 10-sided Rubik's Cube. It's clarity that causes problems for the critic, earns their damnation, not confusion.
Sorites Paradox (referred to in my recent post) also. I think God is a LOT bigger than folks want to think of Him as being. After all, if He created (brought together matter and intelligence) the 'baby' universe and all things that are in it, I think that He's got the whole world in His hands. Yep, I loved that song when I first came in contact with it.
Sorites Parodox in your first sentence, has nothing to do with the rest of your paragraph about God. At this point you're in full stream-of-conscious mode.
There are times when I get the feeling some folks are talking around me rather than taking things seriously. Here and there, a nibble, but then...off somewhere else. Tolkien, for example. Not that I have anything against Tolkien and conversations surrounding his moral philosophy that then shows up in his writing, but it was a big giant sidetrack from the main thrust of the thread.
I'm responding to every point you've made here in your latest post. Does that help? Tolkien was a side-track in some ways, but relevant in others. Does God write straight with crooked lines? is a relevant question for those supporting Tolkien but condemning God. You have the opportunity to use Tolkien to further your cause. How can the critic say Tolkien was a genius and succeeded where theologians fail, exactly? Tolkien was Catholic, after all, and likely trying to sneak his ideas about God into a neutral format that doesn't sound preachy. You had a good suggestion with the light of Christ being like Tolkien's music, I think you were totally correct there. But you must be careful. IF critics believe Tolkien avoided crooked lines, and you make Mormonism too much like Tolkien, then you're saying Mormonism is also straight-line. So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point. I know very little about Tolkien, but I'm gonna guess that he can't ultimately avoid the problems every other theologian eventually runs into.
Thanks for your additional response, Gadianton. I will again say that the Sorites Paradox provides the same dilemma for a believing member of the church as it does for the critic. How much is too much or too little. Better put for believing members, “How much is enough?”
The thing is, there is this principle called faith. You can probably see how that enters into the picture along with Sorites. I mentioned earlier that the road of faith can be tricky at times…crooked…but has the potential of leading towards a more straight and narrow path that leads to perfect knowledge.
I’m sure you would agree that one wouldn’t normally expect this knowledge to come in one fell swoop. At times it may, but most often I think it is a work in progress. One worth the effort in my opinion. One grain of sand at a time.
Sorites is literally powerless and hence useless for determining if the Church is true. It cannot protect truth claims from a cumulative evidence that refutes the Church.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
Regards,
MG
How so? It appears to me you are the one shooting yourself in the foot. I don't use Sorites, you do.
MG:
There are times when I get the feeling some folks are talking around me rather than taking things seriously. Here and there, a nibble, but then...off somewhere else. Tolkien, for example. Not that I have anything against Tolkien and conversations surrounding his moral philosophy that then shows up in his writing, but it was a big giant sidetrack from the main thrust of the thread.
I don’t agree that Tolkien was a “big giant sidetrack.” Calling it that doesn’t really reflect what was happening in the discussion. Tolkien came up because this thread is about how people deal with questions of evil, moral responsibility, and God’s role in the world isn't it? And Tolkien is a well-known example of someone who explores those same questions in a way many people respect.
If we who are critics praise Tolkien as thoughtful and morally serious, but criticize certain Mormon theological explanations as too neat or morally evasive, and even your own views MG, then comparing them isn’t a distraction. It helps us understand why people respond differently to each. Saying “God writes straight with crooked lines” feels very different when it’s shown through story, tragedy, and uncertainty than when it’s used as a clear explanation or justification. You don't get to be the only interpreter of that thought MG. What we are seeing here, is, the bias that has been brought into the discussion. Tolkien is an antidote to that bias.
So Tolkien wasn’t brought up to change the subject, but to shed light on it. If the concern is that critics are being inconsistent by admiring Tolkien while condemning God or theology, then looking at how Tolkien actually handles things like suffering and moral uncertainty is obviously the correct way forward. Brushing that off as a sidetrack feels less like engaging the issue and more like avoiding a hard but important question.
I’ve been thinking about the role of testimony itself. I didn’t realize that the “Fast and Testimony” ritual was a kind of requirement, I had thought that it was a voluntary event—though maybe it is voluntary, with an unstated and underlying pressure to perform the ceremony. Could you please explain the Bishop’s role in the bearing of a testimony?
A biblical-type testimony—“confess that Jesus is Lord”—makes sense to me because I can explain it as a statement about trust and relationship. It doesn’t function as a falsifiable historical claim. Creedal recitations, by saying “I believe,” seem to leave room for doubt.
The thing about applying that confessional language to saying “I know that a book is factually true” reads more like a “tell” to me that something strange is happening, though to be fair the same could be said about the biblical-type confession or a creedal recitation. Maybe the “tell” is because there isn’t really an accepted space for “I’m not sure, but I’m still here.”
I’ve thought about the LDS testimony in terms of serving as a replacement for a creed or confession, in spite of Joseph’s explicit rejection of such things. If that’s the case, saying “I know” speaks more to the role of binding people together than the actual epistemic belief of the confessor.
Today is our Fast and Testimony Meeting. It is typically on the first Sunday each month. The meeting is about 50 minutes long and it is ‘open mike’ where people can simply go up and express their feelings about how the Gospel of Jesus Christ has made their lives better within the context of their families, their personal struggles, their understanding of the purpose of life and the Savior’s Atonement, etc.
In a fast and testimony meeting, there are no assigned speakers or special musical selections. Instead, the person conducting bears a brief testimony. He then invites members of the congregation to bear their testimonies. To bear testimony means to declare gospel truths as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Testimonies should be brief so that many people can participate.
It is not an open mic session for people to declare their understanding of the purpose of life etc. even if that’s what happens in your ward. Please stop misleading Limnor.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Sun Jan 04, 2026 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
You have the opportunity to use Tolkien to further your cause. How can the critic say Tolkien was a genius and succeeded where theologians fail, exactly? Tolkien was Catholic, after all, and likely trying to sneak his ideas about God into a neutral format that doesn't sound preachy. You had a good suggestion with the light of Christ being like Tolkien's music, I think you were totally correct there. But you must be careful. IF critics believe Tolkien avoided crooked lines, and you make Mormonism too much like Tolkien, then you're saying Mormonism is also straight-line. So your best play would be to try and show that Tolkien was in fact a crooked-line theologian just like Kierkegaard and many others. You'd have them in check-mate at that point.
I’m thinking through how this might work, but I’m not as familiar with the LDS concept of the “Light of Christ.”
I think it may be similar to Wesleyan prevenient grace, which is considered a moral light that enables choosing Jesus without coercion. Catholicism also speaks to prevenient grace, where God’s grace precedes and enables the first steps toward faith while preserving free will.
These concepts could be aligned to Tolkien and the shaping of humans by music, and even the Light of Christ, but it is unclear to me how this would advance the crooked and straight line thinking. If you depend on the Light of Christ, prevenient grace, or Tolkien’s music, the less sense the crooked lines make, because if God gives light so people can see, why would you appeal to confusion as the method for conveying that truth?
How so? It appears to me you are the one shooting yourself in the foot. I don't use Sorites, you do.
I’m looking forward to MG explaining his comment.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
