God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

"Knowing" the Book of Mormon is true does not automatically remove the need for continued faith or "crooked" wrestling with other complex doctrines or history.

I hate to keep dropping long posts, but I'm going to revisit this guy. MG thought I glossed over it anyway. First of all, MG is technically correct. The church teaches "line upon line, precept upon precept." Alma 32 also talks about an inductive process where one truth is built on another. Perfect knowledge of thing A does not mean perfect knowledge of thing B. You have faith in A, A is confirmed, now you know A, but not B, so you have faith in B, and then B is confirmed. This lines up with the missionary lessons. You pray about the Book of Mormon and it's confirmed. Now you pray about Joseph Smith, it's confirmed. Now you pray about Dallin, it's confirmed. Now you pray about tithing, it's confirmed. Now you encounter anti-Mormon lit, pray, and the eventual way out is manifest and then the pro-church narrative on the matter is confirmed.

practical objection:
In practice, this is absurd and not how it is desired to work. Think about it, you own a boat and need rowers. When you hire a rower, you want somebody to get on your boat and start rowing, and row through rapids or muck as fluidly as possible. You don't want somebody who rows for five minutes and stops and says, "not sure I signed up for this, boss", and then needs to be convinced to continue another five minutes. Likewise, it's vastly preferable in practice, for a person to get a big one-shot conversion experience and take it from there without a whole lot of fuss. Anyone seeking the massive manifestation of the burning in the bosom or other esoteric feelings is looking for a one-time shot. They aren't thinking, once they get the ultimate burning that confirms the Book of Mormon, that wow, they're going to have to schedule a fast for next month in order to get a similar answer about tithing.

theoretical objection:
My theoretical objection can be posed as a question to MG (Limnor, think about your friend from work). MG, as a crooked line advocate, are you open to the possibility of the following crooked-line situation:

The missionaries tract out a guy and give him the Book of Mormon. He prays and receives confirmation that it's true. He prays about Joseph Smith and receives a spiritual confirmation about Joseph Smith. He's happily going along with a new calling and fired up about participating. All is great, until one day, the prophet dies. The new prophet is confirmed. After reading Alma 32, he realizes he's been amiss. He prayed about A, confirmed, then about B, confirmed, but then he stopped. He never prayed about the prophet who had just passed on! Okay, with this new prophet, he would right the ship. And so he prays about the new prophet, and Nothing, no confirmation. Huh, what went wrong? He studies and prays and prays, talks to the bishop, and goes on something of a spiritual quest because the answer just isn't coming to him. The more he reads online, he's getting into church history, polygamy, and all sorts of weird stuff. He's feeling dark and confused. Eventually, he comes across the writings of Denver Snuffer. Things are starting to make sense again. He prays about Denver Snuffer and receives the spiritual confirmation that he is the living prophet. So he joins the Snufferites.

Are you open to this as a theoretical possibility, MG? ^^^

[Res Ipsa]

Finally, we get an actual argument to respond to. But it’s nothing other than the same old tired Mopologetics we’ve seen ad nauseum: critics have the burden to conclusively prove that the church is false.

For the ordinary truth seeker, this assertion is absurd. What it does is effectively assert that every thing that a person can imagine must be treated as true unless it is conclusively proven as false. And what that burden translates as is “proves that the proposition cannot possibly be true.”

No person genuinely interested in finding truth will begin the search with this kind of absurd special pleading. First, a sincere truth seeker will place the burden of proof on the person asserting a proposition. MG2.0 asserts that the church is “true.” That’s his burden of proof to carry. If he fails to do, it is perfectly rational for a “critic” to reject his proposition without proving anything. The critic of a proposition does not have the burden of proving the opposite of the proposition. That would be the kind of black and white thinking that MG2.0 claims to reject.

Moreover, the burden of proof should be much closer to the more likely than not burden that we use a million times a day in every day life. Who makes the important decisions in their life based on a requirement of “conclusive proof?” If conclusive proof were actually the requirement, we’d be completely paralyzed — unable to make any decisions about any issue.

This is the intellectually dishonest game that is the foundation of Mopologetics: my religious beliefs are true, and criticizing them is illegitimate unless you prove that they cannot possibly be true. And I can invoke an omnipotent God in a way that makes nothing impossible.

What’s tricky is that the syllogism is formally valid:

1. The Mormon Church is true unless someone proves that it is impossible for it to be true.

2. With God, all things are possible.

3. Therefore, it is possible that the Church is true.

4. Therefore, the Church is true.

Formally valid. Absurd premises.

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?

I think this is finally getting to the real issue, and I agree with much of what Res Ipsa is saying about burden of proof. In ordinary reasoning, we don’t require critics to prove a claim cannot possibly be true before rejecting it. The burden normally rests with the person making the truth claim, and the standard we use in real life is closer to “more likely than not,” not absolute or conclusive proof.

Where I want to be careful is here because my objection to MG’s use of “God writes straight with crooked lines” is not that history is simple, or that critics never cherry-pick, or that human judgment is easy. It’s that the phrase functions as a belief protecting move, not one that does any evaluating. It doesn’t help us weigh evidence since it weakly suspends evaluation while quietly privileging one conclusion, MG's only, no one else counts. The game is rigged. MG, open your eyes, the game you propound here is rigged beforehand and we all see it. Is this really how you want the world to see you defending God and Mormonism, by cheating up front in order to win? Really? It's what you are doing and we all see it. Go ahead and deny it, that doesn't change anything..

That’s the asymmetry. When things look bad, the crooked lines are said to be part of God’s plan. When things look good, they’re taken as confirmation. Either way, the conclusion is fixed in advance by MG, which is less than realistic. At that point, the phrase no longer explains anything, it's just insulating, not contributing anything.

This is exactly why Tolkien mattered earlier in the thread. Tolkien allows for crooked lines without turning them into justifications. Wrong remains wrong. Tragedy remains tragic. No moral failure is retroactively redeemed by appealing to divine intent. Meaning may emerge, but it is never used to cancel responsibility.

So my concern isn’t that MG is wrong to resist “smoking gun” thinking. It’s that once “God straightens crooked lines” becomes the governing principle, moral judgment is no longer doing any real work. And if moral judgment is always deferred upward, then “by their fruits ye shall know them” loses its teeth entirely. Is this comfortable for MG?

That’s not skepticism. That’s abdication.

If MG wants this idea to strike “at the core of many things,” then it has to be constrained, otherwise it explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

Well said, Philo. Nobody here has been defending bad reasoning. Cherry picking is bad reasoning, regardless of who does it. Smoking guns are exceedingly rare, and people commonly overstate the strength of evidence. The Mopologist slight of hand is to equate theoretical possibility to an evidence-based conclusion.

[Gadianton]

The Mopologist slight of hand is to equate theoretical possibility to an evidence-based conclusion.

Perfect. If a criminal conducts a home invasion and kills the entire family unmasked, no gloves, with cameras everywhere, who is more likely to appeal to Sorites paradox to undercut the other side's evidence; the prosecutor or the defendant?

[bill4long]

Finally, we get an actual argument to respond to. But it’s nothing other than the same old tired Mopologetics we’ve seen ad nauseum: critics have the burden to conclusively prove that the church is false.

For the ordinary truth seeker, this assertion is absurd. What it does is effectively assert that every thing that a person can imagine must be treated as true unless it is conclusively proven as false. And what that burden translates as is “proves that the proposition cannot possibly be true.”

No person genuinely interested in finding truth will begin the search with this kind of absurd special pleading. First, a sincere truth seeker will place the burden of proof on the person asserting a proposition. MG2.0 asserts that the church is “true.” That’s his burden of proof to carry. If he fails to do, it is perfectly rational for a “critic” to reject his proposition without proving anything. The critic of a proposition does not have the burden of proving the opposite of the proposition. That would be the kind of black and white thinking that MG2.0 claims to reject.

Moreover, the burden of proof should be much closer to the more likely than not burden that we use a million times a day in every day life. Who makes the important decisions in their life based on a requirement of “conclusive proof?” If conclusive proof were actually the requirement, we’d be completely paralyzed — unable to make any decisions about any issue.

This is the intellectually dishonest game that is the foundation of Mopologetics: my religious beliefs are true, and criticizing them is illegitimate unless you prove that they cannot possibly be true. And I can invoke an omnipotent God in a way that makes nothing impossible.

What’s tricky is that the syllogism is formally valid:

1. The Mormon Church is true unless someone proves that it is impossible for it to be true.

2. With God, all things are possible.

3. Therefore, it is possible that the Church is true.

4. Therefore, the Church is true.

Formally valid. Absurd premises.

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?

I think this is finally getting to the real issue, and I agree with much of what Res Ipsa is saying about burden of proof. In ordinary reasoning, we don’t require critics to prove a claim cannot possibly be true before rejecting it. The burden normally rests with the person making the truth claim, and the standard we use in real life is closer to “more likely than not,” not absolute or conclusive proof.

Where I want to be careful is here because my objection to MG’s use of “God writes straight with crooked lines” is not that history is simple, or that critics never cherry-pick, or that human judgment is easy. It’s that the phrase functions as a belief protecting move, not one that does any evaluating. It doesn’t help us weigh evidence since it weakly suspends evaluation while quietly privileging one conclusion, MG's only, no one else counts. The game is rigged. MG, open your eyes, the game you propound here is rigged beforehand and we all see it. Is this really how you want the world to see you defending God and Mormonism, by cheating up front in order to win? Really? It's what you are doing and we all see it. Go ahead and deny it, that doesn't change anything..

That’s the asymmetry. When things look bad, the crooked lines are said to be part of God’s plan. When things look good, they’re taken as confirmation. Either way, the conclusion is fixed in advance by MG, which is less than realistic. At that point, the phrase no longer explains anything, it's just insulating, not contributing anything.

This is exactly why Tolkien mattered earlier in the thread. Tolkien allows for crooked lines without turning them into justifications. Wrong remains wrong. Tragedy remains tragic. No moral failure is retroactively redeemed by appealing to divine intent. Meaning may emerge, but it is never used to cancel responsibility.

So my concern isn’t that MG is wrong to resist “smoking gun” thinking. It’s that once “God straightens crooked lines” becomes the governing principle, moral judgment is no longer doing any real work. And if moral judgment is always deferred upward, then “by their fruits ye shall know them” loses its teeth entirely. Is this comfortable for MG?

That’s not skepticism. That’s abdication.

If MG wants this idea to strike “at the core of many things,” then it has to be constrained, otherwise it explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

Very wise commentary

[bill4long]

As a sidebar: how many red hairs does it take to turn a white cow into a red cow?

My mind reels...

As I devour some delicious Saag Paneer.

[I Have Questions]

Finally, we get an actual argument to respond to. But it’s nothing other than the same old tired Mopologetics we’ve seen ad nauseum: critics have the burden to conclusively prove that the church is false.

For the ordinary truth seeker, this assertion is absurd. What it does is effectively assert that every thing that a person can imagine must be treated as true unless it is conclusively proven as false. And what that burden translates as is “proves that the proposition cannot possibly be true.”

Yes. This. It is wilful dishonesty. Because MG (and the Mopologists) have not disproven the claims of Scientology. So they must therefore accept that Scientology is as “true” as the SLC LDS church. I could have inserted any religion and it would be equally applicable.

[I Have Questions]

I think that’s a great suggestion, Limnor would find it fascinating. Although I would advise him to go with someone that can run interference and stop him being hounded by missionaries etc as a new face tends to attract that kind of “let’s convert him” attention.

How would it go over if I bore my testimony that the book was true and reflected the lives of Joseph and his initial followers?

It would be deemed problematic and you’d be asked to leave. Politely.

[Limnor]

Gad wrote: My theoretical objection can be posed as a question to MG (Limnor, think about your friend from work). MG, as a crooked line advocate, are you open to the possibility of the following crooked-line situation:

-snip-

Are you open to this as a theoretical possibility, MG? ^^^

Along with this, MG, are you open to a direct “no” answer or “true, but not ancient,” as a crooked line?

[Limnor]

How would it go over if I bore my testimony that the book was true and reflected the lives of Joseph and his initial followers?

It would be deemed problematic and you’d be asked to leave. Politely.

No one would listen anyway, right?

[I Have Questions]

It would be deemed problematic and you’d be asked to leave. Politely.

No one would listen anyway, right?

Most would be on their phones or wrestling small children.