God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

I imagine that some of this may indeed be relevant to Mormon leaders, who are supposed to be divinely selected and guided, even if not quite infallible. What I wonder is how many Mormons ever make it out of boot camp, so to speak, and learn to see through the pose.

I agree with this, and think the boot camp analogy really fits. Early on, those tools shape obedience, but eventually you are expected to think for yourself again. Mormonism treats later independent thinking not as maturity, but as a spiritual problem.

[Limnor]

It’s imperative to minimise Joseph’s actions with regards to things like polygamy. Because if it’s admitted it casts strong suspicion on his other claims of divine involvement in things like gold plates, angelic visions etc. once it’s accepted that Joseph was a convincing liar we can clearly see the con man nature that was within him. We know objectively that he conned people throughout his life - People who hired him to seek treasure, his own wife, the judicial system, the Kinderhook plates thing, the Egyptian mummy thing, etc etc etc. His life is sprinkled throughout with known con man activity.

Once you realize that Joseph could knowingly deceive in a major moral area, you should start wonder what else he lied about. I suppose you could cling to Sorites but boy that’s a big head of sand you’ve piled there.

[Gadianton]

It seems Limnor and physics guy had slightly different experiences, but let's go with the drill sergeant mentally preparing new recruits for the ambiguity of battle. I wasn't thinking about Joseph Smith in particular, I don't think he's a good use case, but it doesn't matter as MG has already sealed off the possibility.

I personally look at all the bad in the world and it's so unjustifiable that I couldn't care less whether God f's with his chosen people or whether he fully discloses everything. Most of this conversation is just theory that will never fit. I think the Abrahamic test is a sham. For the sake of theory, however, I'm open to God using crooked lines. I can only think of two cases though where a God would use crooked lines before the fact.

1) preparation for battle. While horribly open to abuse, it's quite theoretically possible to me that mind games might be played with the objective of strengthening or weeding out "recruits". The military, gangs, fraternities, gnostic-like religions and authoritarian structures in general. But even then, inductees are often expecting mind games and initiation rites and stuff like that and embrace the thought because their goal is to get tough. And the use is likely quite limited if the org wants to be successful.

2) the case where no church is true per se, God has authored a crooked line world for purposes we don't understand and no answer can be trusted on what we should do. If I'm going to buy a video game or watch a movie, I want the best ride possible with plot twists, deception, and make it as over-the-top as possible so long as believability is maintained. It's possible that joining church A was right for Bob but wrong for Steve.

[Limnor]

It seems Limnor and physics guy had slightly different experiences, but let's go with the drill sergeant mentally preparing new recruits for the ambiguity of battle. I wasn't thinking about Joseph Smith in particular, I don't think he's a good use case, but it doesn't matter as MG has already sealed off the possibility.

I personally look at all the bad in the world and it's so unjustifiable that I couldn't care less whether God f's with his chosen people or whether he fully discloses everything. Most of this conversation is just theory that will never fit. I think the Abrahamic test is a sham. For the sake of theory, however, I'm open to God using crooked lines. I can only think of two cases though where a God would use crooked lines before the fact.

1) preparation for battle. While horribly open to abuse, it's quite theoretically possible to me that mind games might be played with the objective of strengthening or weeding out "recruits". The military, gangs, fraternities, gnostic-like religions and authoritarian structures in general. But even then, inductees are often expecting mind games and initiation rites and stuff like that and embrace the thought because their goal is to get tough. And the use is likely quite limited if the org wants to be successful.

2) the case where no church is true per se, God has authored a crooked line world for purposes we don't understand and no answer can be trusted on what we should do. If I'm going to buy a video game or watch a movie, I want the best ride possible with plot twists, deception, and make it as over-the-top as possible so long as believability is maintained. It's possible that joining church A was right for Bob but wrong for Steve.

I think there is some value in continued consideration of the Abrahamic test, but I’d like to better understand your reasons for the boot camp analogy.

I’m thinking through everything you’ve said, from the test being meaningless in the first place due to suffering in the world (is that an accurate read back?) to your explanation of a couple of situations in which a test that introduces confusion can be levied to achieve a greater good. It isn’t clear to me why you’ve proceeded to look for those examples after dismissing the need to do so.

I’m led to this question—do you see your position as a provisional “I don’t know,” or as a principled refusal to accept any explanation that tries to justify the amount of evil we actually see?

I’ve got a possible alternate reason for the Abrahamic test—maybe the story isn’t about whether Abraham would obey an immoral command, but is about whether Abraham trusts God not to require immoral action in the end, yet still confirming the promise that the seed (Isaac) would be the first of many descendants of Abraham.

[Gadianton]

I think there is some value in continued consideration of the Abrahamic test, but I’d like to better understand your reasons for the boot camp analogy.

I can conceive of an authority figure playing a mind game with a subordinate while having the interests of the subordinate in mind. To me, the idea is to think of crooked lines by an authority that aren't obviously post-hoc or obviously designed out of abuse. Whether or not I think the Abraham test is a good one, I think the narrative meets these criteria. An example of God using crooked lines. (your explanation otherwise is still fantastic)

I’m thinking through everything you’ve said, from the test being meaningless in the first place due to suffering in the world (is that an accurate read back?) to your explanation of a couple of situations in which a test that introduces confusion can be levied to achieve a greater good. It isn’t clear to me why you’ve proceeded to look for those examples after dismissing the need to do so.

I may have wandered off the path a little. In an extended analysis of Abraham, I wonder about the great importance of testing Abraham's love and trust while children by the thousands are being slaughtered in neighboring countries as sacrifices. But I can suspend disbelief enough to consider the test on its own terms.

I’m led to this question—do you see your position as a provisional “I don’t know,” or as a principled refusal to accept any explanation that tries to justify the amount of evil we actually see?

I'm always willing to change my mind, who knows, something might convince me. But my interest is more academic and in the fun of shooting the bull with friends than seriously looking for life answers.

I’ve got a possible alternate reason for the Abrahamic test—maybe the story isn’t about whether Abraham would obey an immoral command, but is about whether Abraham trusts God not to require immoral action in the end, yet still confirming the promise that the seed (Isaac) would be the first of many descendants of Abraham.

You have a knack for coming up with explanations. I would still consider it a crooked-line test by God. Again, I'm not equating crooked simplistically to evil. This is graduate school for Abraham.

[Limnor]

I just worked on this so going to post it before reading your post in-depth, gad. I hope it is helpful.

I’ve considered the situation from a different point of view that I think may be helpful. Rather than using the Abraham story as a prophetic “type” representing Jesus, I think Joseph hijacked the story and placed himself in Abraham’s role as the one being tested—using polygamy to fulfill the exception in Jacob about “raising up seed,” which was the promise to Abraham.

But I read the Abrahamic test as epistemic—concerned with Abraham’s belief and trust in God—not whether child sacrifice is something to be obeyed and instituted. The epistemic, prophetic model of the type that Jesus fulfills only works if the test is singular, the sacrifice is completed as Abraham expected—that God Himself would provide the sacrifice—and no human gets to replay the event.

What happens, though, is instead of the sacrifice being stayed and a ram being provided, real people are harmed. The test is no longer epistemic and about believing God’s promises, it becomes belief in Joseph’s prophetic authority and voice of God. Joseph knows the “command” and others are required to trust under threat of spiritual consequence.

Treating the Abrahamic test as epistemic and a test of trusting God results in exposing the falseness of Joseph’s use of it, because Abraham’s test ends before anything bad happens to Isaac. So the problem isn’t the Abrahamic test, it’s Joseph’s hijacking of it.

[Limnor]

You have a knack for coming up with explanations. I would still consider it a crooked-line test by God. Again, I'm not equating crooked simplistically to evil. This is graduate school for Abraham.

I’ve wondered if there would be a better way for God to test and see if Abraham truly believed God. God had promised Abraham that He would provide innumerable descendants through the promised seed (Isaac). If the promise was true, Isaac couldn’t be killed, or if so, would have to be brought back to life. Abraham seems to have believed one or both of these possible outcomes—he told Isaac God would provide the sacrifice, and he is explained by Paul later as having reasoned that God would bring Isaac back to life.

Another thing I think about is does Abraham believe God—that is, trust God’s promise about the seed—rather than just obey commands?

[Limnor]

But my interest is more academic and in the fun of shooting the bull with friends than seriously looking for life answers.

Yeah man sorry about that—I guess when MG isn’t around to tease I get carried away and too serious lol

[Gadianton]

But I read the Abrahamic test as epistemic—concerned with Abraham’s belief and trust in God—not whether child sacrifice is something to be obeyed and instituted. The epistemic, prophetic model of the type that Jesus fulfills only works if the test is singular, the sacrifice is completed as Abraham expected—that God Himself would provide the sacrifice—and no human gets to replay the event.

Isn't that kind of like God telling Evil Knievel he's got to be the one guy to jump the grand canyon and then no more, but then it's televised worldwide and doesn't even come with the disclaimer, "kids, do not try this at home?" In the paragraph before this one, you explained that Joseph Smith got his devious idea from the story. Again, it's the moral hazard of having this most-publicized-story-ever being so easy to misinterpret; and if it's a one-off thing that nobody else ever needs to worry will happen to them, why even print it?

I’ve wondered if there would be a better way for God to test and see if Abraham truly believed God.

I think this is an extraordinarily complicated question. What did it mean that Abraham believed God in the first place? He was brought up to believe the way that he did. It's just as luck would have it, he was born into the right lineage. The guy in the tribe across the river believed Molech enough to sacrifice his kid also. But at face value, it's fantastic material for constructing loyalty tests. So I have no problem giving it an "A" for satisfying its intent.

My number one issue with the test is why does it matter to God that Abraham believe or love God? I understand the pragmatic origins of tribal loyalty, but tribal loyalty is the antithesis of the way love should be understood. Even the New Testament shows this with the Good Samaritan and other examples of outsiders throwing a wrench into in-group social norms. Even Jesus is from the wrong town. If I were God, I can't see the big deal about my creations believing me or loving me and especially worshipping me. I'd be more concerned about the welfare of the creations. If I get a fish tank, I'm going to set it up the best I can to give them the best lives possible. My happiness is seeing them happy, I have no need for them to come to the glass and thank me.

[Limnor]

But I read the Abrahamic test as epistemic—concerned with Abraham’s belief and trust in God—not whether child sacrifice is something to be obeyed and instituted. The epistemic, prophetic model of the type that Jesus fulfills only works if the test is singular, the sacrifice is completed as Abraham expected—that God Himself would provide the sacrifice—and no human gets to replay the event.

Isn't that kind of like God telling Evil Knievel he's got to be the one guy to jump the grand canyon and then no more, but then it's televised worldwide and doesn't even come with the disclaimer, "kids, do not try this at home?" In the paragraph before this one, you explained that Joseph Smith got his devious idea from the story. Again, it's the moral hazard of having this most-publicized-story-ever being so easy to misinterpret; and if it's a one-off thing that nobody else ever needs to worry will happen to them, why even print it?

I’ve wondered if there would be a better way for God to test and see if Abraham truly believed God.

I think this is an extraordinarily complicated question. What did it mean that Abraham believed God in the first place? He was brought up to believe the way that he did. It's just as luck would have it, he was born into the right lineage. The guy in the tribe across the river believed Molech enough to sacrifice his kid also. But at face value, it's fantastic material for constructing loyalty tests. So I have no problem giving it an "A" for satisfying its intent.

My number one issue with the test is why does it matter to God that Abraham believe or love God? I understand the pragmatic origins of tribal loyalty, but tribal loyalty is the antithesis of the way love should be understood. Even the New Testament shows this with the Good Samaritan and other examples of outsiders throwing a wrench into in-group social norms. Even Jesus is from the wrong town. If I were God, I can't see the big deal about my creations believing me or loving me and especially worshipping me. I'd be more concerned about the welfare of the creations. If I get a fish tank, I'm going to set it up the best I can to give them the best lives possible. My happiness is seeing them happy, I have no need for them to come to the glass and thank me.

I think the “one time event” was specifically prophetically aligned to looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus. I think the “crooked lines” describe those that hijack the original meaning to satisfy other goals. I think God allows false prophets who act crookedly to rise as a further test and refinement of believers. I’m still thinking about this, because you make a good point that I can’t quite put a bow on in my own thinking.

One small correction—Abraham wasn’t born into it. He left everything. That doesn’t answer your larger concern about why belief should matter to God at all, but it does imply the test wasn’t related to tribal loyalty that his father was aligned to.

—Long ago, your ancestors—Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods. (Joshua 24:2)

The number one issue, as I see it, is the opposite as you described. It’s not that God demanded belief or worship, He was testing Abraham’s belief, and to me it was more a testing that Abraham believed God loved him more so than the other way around. John says it this way—it’s not that we love God, it’s that He loved us first.

I wonder if this means the Abraham story only survives ethically if read backwards through the New Testament.