God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

Great to see the discussion continuing! Have you got it all figured out? Haha.

I'm glad this topic has triggered some civil and useful conversation.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think you have to limit yourself to a single interpretation...

Before delving into the related questions, you're right, I wasn't consistent here. I Do think it might be beyond interpretive control to say what straight vs. crooked means, however, I do think we might figure something out about the mind that suggests the model. What did MG mean? It's one of those things he has a sense for but can't quite put his finger on, and we have a great sense that it's an outright apologetic to get the church out of any sticky situation after the fact and always special pleading for the church. But it is quite possible in my mind that it is a true general principle, but apologists mostly gravitate toward the useful part for their leaders. Even some of MG's impulses suggest it could be something more than an apologetic, he just must reach beyond himself, into the darkness, and hope there is light yet up the way.

Straight, I see as more 'macro', what's going on at a more enlarged/global scale. That which we see/understand after the crooked is manifest. Crooked is more present tense while macro is usually looking back. Earlier I had suggested looking at an oscilloscope pattern. Jagged/crooked lines up and down while traveling a straight line across the screen. The crooked path is leading 'somewhere'. That will vary from person to person. My belief is that the gospel of Christ and the Atonement help us move along that naturally crooked path resulting in a straight line that helps us in our quest to become 'more perfect'. In my mind it makes sense that there was an original programmer that created the algorithm that creates/stipulates the wavelength patterns and outcomes.

If you've ever looked directly at the wave pattern on an oscilloscope it almost appears as thought the wave patterns are 'dancing in place' even though in reality they are in movement recording new information. Someone looking at it from a macro position in time/eternity would be able to make the 'read' and find tune the adjustments in real time...from their perspective. That get's us into the area of a Supreme Being again. I figure if we can bring in Frodo and Co. we can bring in a creator God.

Compare it to the problem of evil, are "straight" and "crooked" simple substitutional terms for good and evil? If so, it's barely interesting, at least to me.

Evil, in my mind, exists because of the crooked patterns in human behavior/conduct resulting from deviating from the preset algorithm God has set/designed for human flourishing/happiness.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

What I would argue is that human beings are flawed and will naturally travel crooked lines. That being said, those crooked lines can lead to God's purposes and/or the straight and narrow way.

History, in the past, and the making of history, in the present...is not a binary process. And I don't think it can be interpreted that way. History is fluid with many moving parts and outcomes that need adjustment along the way by a 'controller' that can see the end from the beginning and make appropriate adjustments along the way.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't want to take over the discussion. That is why I'm coming in and out now and then. I'd like the conversation/discussion to 'flow' mainly in the direction that other posters would like to see it go.

Just popping in.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...History, in the past, and the making of history, in the present...is not a binary process...

What on earth does that mean?

...And I don't think it can be interpreted that way. History is fluid with many moving parts and outcomes that need adjustment along the way by a 'controller' that can see the end from the beginning and make appropriate adjustments along the way.

Well that's creepily insidious. History has "outcomes that need adjustment along the way by a 'controller' " ???

Mentalgymnastics aside, why does someone need a 'controller' to 'fix' history?

[I Have Questions]

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

MG 2.0, we are still waiting for you to explain this comment, or to apologise for it.

[MG 2.0]

Most of the rest of your post continued to explore the Sorites paradox which hurts your case as much as it helps your case, and it's already been discussed extensively here and I didn't feel like continuing to respond to it. Have you ever applied the Sorites paradox to your claim that you know the church is true? How does it apply to critics questioning the church but not to you establishing it?

You take your baseline beliefs about the church as the default way the world really is, and if anyone disagrees, they have Sorites to contend with. They can never overturn the baseline because nobody can resolve the Sorites paradox. Paradoxes like that aren't useful for settling real empirical claims because if they are true, they undercut all claims equally and there's no point discussing anything because nothing can be true.

Another example. I predict you won't go to church tomorrow. Why? Because of Aristotle's paradox of motion. You must first get halfway to church, then halfway between the halfway point and church, then halfway between the 3/4 mark and church and so on ad infinitum; never actually arriving*. This also proves that Joseph Smith could never have obtained the gold plates because first he'd have to get halfway up the hill Cumorah, then 3/4s and so on into infinity, never reaching the stone.

*the paradox has been updated several times to accommodate calculus and plank-length, the essential point still stands today so please, no terse dismissals.

It is hard for me to believe MG is actually wanting to get to the truth of things when he keeps bringing up the Sorites paradox and we have already showed it doesn't work the way MG thinks it does. I am curious if he will actually engage on this response of yours and grapple with the problem of using the paradox to keep critics at bay, since that is the only reason he uses it, and it fails. I looked into it a bit as well and my over view of its weakness as helping Mormonism as MG wishes comes down to a couple things.
What the Sorites paradox actually does is exposes vagueness in words like (heap, bald, tall, etc.). It shows that when concepts lack sharp boundaries, that is when using reason that depends on precise cutoff points becomes unstable. It is a problem about language and classification, not about whether concrete historical or empirical claims are true. Apparently MG will not accept this view, even though the rest of the world sees it. Wiki actually has a really decent article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

Sorites does not establish truth. And it never will even be able to do so. It also does not generate positive knowledge. And it never will be able to do so. It only shows that some distinctions are fuzzy. The problem now is MG's using it weirdly at best, and he refuses to acknowledge that and repent and quit doing so. In other words, he is being disingenuous about it, and it really shows. MG is using Sorites as a shield for his testimony parable, not as an analysis as it is meant to be used. So what happens is we raise a lot of objections and evidence against the Church. MG now say that “You can’t show the exact point where belief becomes unreasonable.” And now he thinks that puts it in a position that the Church therefore remains true after all, yippie! I win! MG has no idea what a non-sequitur is, unfortunately. Just because there isn't a precise cutoff does not imply that the overall claim is true at all. Even with a best case scenario, confidence can only be gradual not binary such as either true or false. MG refuses to consider the meaning of this. It is what you are trying to get him to see, and he probably won't do so, and I think he does this on purpose, which really makes me careful in believing what he presents now as evidence in the Churches favor. This gradualness of evidences instead of just plop - true or false - applies to coming to find out the church is true as much as it is coming to find all the problems and hence the falseness of it.

The fatal problem MG is skipping is when he applies Sorites in only one direction, as you have already noted Gad, and we have not seen him acknowledge this yet. If we criticize and question the church, Sorites rescues MG since he thinks it makes all criticisms not ever complete, nor can they be. They are indeterminate. When MG bears his testimony that the church is true, that is philosophically illegitimate. The reason why is, once again, patently, openly, easily obvious. If Sorites undermines our ability to say “this is false,” it equally undermines MG’s ability to say “this is true.” MG is special pleading with claiming certainty itself, which comes from the exact same vagueness that he uses as a weapon AGAINST any criticisms! So if vagueness dissolves criticisms, then it equally as well dissolves evidences in favor. The actual truth if we invoke Sorites can only be as strong as this wishy-washy view - It is because there is vagueness that neither critics nor believers can make any strong truth claims about the church and prophets. But this would, of course, undo his apologetic. He imagines that by freezing the default position (the Church is true), and at the same time preventing any challenge from reaching a decisive conclusion, that Sorites is a Mormon weapon. That is not philosophy, that is boundary policing.

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. When it is used consistently Sorites actually weakens claims of certainty, including Mormon testimony claims. Using it selectively as MG continually illogically does is an apologetics tactic, not a valid argument.

Apparently there is a point made here that I have ignored. You're correct that the Sorites Paradox doesn't establish truth claims in the first place. I accept that. However, that doesn't mean it's useless to the believer, it merely means it functions differently than critics suggest. For believers who already have spiritual experiences confirming truth, Sorites explains why refined certainty is a process, not a binary conclusion."

This is somewhat of a different path than that which critics are wont to follow. Their path excludes the spiritual dimension which keeps one on the path seeking/looking for further light and knowledge.

Believers may arrive at a personal conviction of the truth of the gospel through personal conviction which doesn't involve Sorites. However, when a believer responds to subsequent doubts and complexity...which is bound to happen sooner or later...Sorites does come into play. Sorites isn't meant to protect initial truth claims from evidence, that's not its function. It's about managing the vagueness in what counts as 'enough evidence' once you're already convinced...either spiritually or intellectually...or combination of both.

If Sorites undermines my ability to say, "The church is true", it...at the same time...equally undermines the critics saying, "The CofJCofLDS is false." This is based only on whether or not we are looking at all of this with pure logical certainty. A believer is using more than one modality...pure logic...to determine what is true and what is not. The spiritual also comes into play. Prayer, and asking God for guidance and direction. Of course, we then get into the area of 'different strokes for different folks' and how God does or does not enter into THAT picture. That's another discussion which I would guess has been held elsewhere in greater depth than I want to entertain in this thread. Except to say that this is where I think the crooked/straight conversation directly enters in. My opinion anyway.

I should be or could be a bit more clear I suppose. Clarification comes through further questions, etc. I'm contextualizing faith development for those who are already believers or those that want to believe (for one reason or another...reasons that can be logically valid).

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

Is MG 2.0 Austin Fife? The reason for this question should be obvious for anyone who has encountered his "letter."

[Rivendale]

Is MG 2.0 Austin Fife? The reason for this question should be obvious for anyone who has encountered his "letter."

You mean that letter where he blames critics for logical fallacies then commits the same ones?

[bill4long]

Is MG 2.0 Austin Fife? The reason for this question should be obvious for anyone who has encountered his "letter."

You mean that letter where he blames critics for logical fallacies then commits the same ones?

Yes.