God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

If ambiguity counts as crookedness, then the Book of Mormon requiring continual prophetic correction is at least as crooked as the Bible it claims to straighten.

Or on the other hand one could look at the Bible, Book of Mormon, and living prophets forming a mutually reinforcing network of testimonies, comparable to multiple independent measurements that together give confidence in a line of evidence. The prophetic utterances and the scriptural straightening that happens in conjunction with the Book of Mormon being placed parallel with the Bible (assuming the Bible is not inerrant) can't prove themselves except through the inner witness of the Spirit and the pragmatic 'fruits' in the lives of adherents (those living the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

It is these additional evidences that the straightedges are in alignment with reality. Those evidences, of course, cannot be handed to someone else as absolute evidence. A testimony can only be shared.

On another thread I asked Physics Guy some questions having to do with epistemology. I'm hoping he will respond. We continue to go back and forth on what epistemology is going to rule the day or if there are any possible compromises. What counts as good reasons for believing LDS truth claims are actually true and how do we know when a straightedge is actually straight?

Critics want a straightedge whose accuracy can be tested from outside the LDS system, not only from within. Earlier a poster said that my arguments are circular. At the end of the day there is truth to that assertion. The truthiness can only be experienced from living inside the system, not outside. The circular logic resides inside the system. At its core the truths of the LDS church are only discernable through certain epistemological frameworks that include spiritual experience, convergence of reason and revelation, coherence of 'everything put together' (what I've called global/macro rather than simply focusing on the micro), and pragmatic experience in living the gospel.

Regards,
MG

It’s refreshing that you admit it’s circular.

[Gadianton]

Where/when there are questions about straight vs. crookedness in the scriptures, you’re right, that is what a prophet (authorities) are for. Essentially continuing that ‘triangulating process’ in real time. Cultural context does play a large part in that triangulation. And it’s ongoing.

You waffle back and forth between two version of "crookedness" that are at odds with each other.

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

It reminds me of a scriptural reference in the LDS canon where it is said that God makes weak things strong and that God may even choose those weak things to serve Him in His purposes. Some of the strongest people are those that traveled a squiggly line (hardship and trials) while God worked with them to show/teach them a 'better way'.

In one version, human agency and events out of the scope of God's control cause hardship and suffering. Presumably, he finds some subtle way to help us, for instance, he inspires a missionary to knock on a door and begins the straightening process. But this is incompatible with many of your other insights such as:

If God could make a crooked line function as a straight one by redefining the geometry, the frame of reference, or the purpose, how would that enter into the original "God can write straight with crooked lines"?

Is it true that in non-Euclidean geometry, for example, that a "straight line" can curve across a sphere? What looks crooked in one system is straight in another.

Situational ethics "that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another" is a completely different animal. Note the bolded -- in your "2.0" version, "sins" and "injustice" aren't really "sins" and "injustice" but really "righteousness" and "justice" when advanced geometry is understood.

Case study: Joseph Smith and polygamy.

In version one, we could argue Joseph Smith had many failures as a person. Foremost, he was a womanizer and a control freak, was prone to lie to advance his own agenda. For instance, he lied about an angel with a flaming sword insisting he marry an underage girl. But God can use a person with weaknesses. Perhaps Joseph also had some rare talent, and despite these failings, with the Lord's guidance, he was able to restore the church and lay the foundation for the kingdom. "weak things become strong"

In version two, there really was an angel with a flaming sword commanding Joseph Smith to marry an underage girl because, as Joseph Smith has explained, that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another. Joseph Smith wasn't a womanizer at all, or a control freak, or prone to lie. God was commanding Joseph Smith to do something which appeared to be a sin, but once higher geometry is understood, was really a sacred and righteous thing.

[MG 2.0]

Or on the other hand one could look at the Bible, Book of Mormon, and living prophets forming a mutually reinforcing network of testimonies, comparable to multiple independent measurements that together give confidence in a line of evidence. The prophetic utterances and the scriptural straightening that happens in conjunction with the Book of Mormon being placed parallel with the Bible (assuming the Bible is not inerrant) can't prove themselves except through the inner witness of the Spirit and the pragmatic 'fruits' in the lives of adherents (those living the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

It is these additional evidences that the straightedges are in alignment with reality. Those evidences, of course, cannot be handed to someone else as absolute evidence. A testimony can only be shared.

On another thread I asked Physics Guy some questions having to do with epistemology. I'm hoping he will respond. We continue to go back and forth on what epistemology is going to rule the day or if there are any possible compromises. What counts as good reasons for believing LDS truth claims are actually true and how do we know when a straightedge is actually straight?

Critics want a straightedge whose accuracy can be tested from outside the LDS system, not only from within. Earlier a poster said that my arguments are circular. At the end of the day there is truth to that assertion. The truthiness can only be experienced from living inside the system, not outside. The circular logic resides inside the system. At its core the truths of the LDS church are only discernable through certain epistemological frameworks that include spiritual experience, convergence of reason and revelation, coherence of 'everything put together' (what I've called global/macro rather than simply focusing on the micro), and pragmatic experience in living the gospel.

Regards,
MG

It’s refreshing that you admit it’s circular.

Who knows? I might be able to gain your trust.

I've said repeatedly that I'm as transparent as they get.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It’s refreshing that you admit it’s circular.

Who knows? I might be able to gain your trust.

I've said repeatedly that I'm as transparent as they get.

Regards,
MG

I’d offer this as a epistemic summary that you can use, free of charge: “It works for me, therefore it’s true.”

[MG 2.0]

Where/when there are questions about straight vs. crookedness in the scriptures, you’re right, that is what a prophet (authorities) are for. Essentially continuing that ‘triangulating process’ in real time. Cultural context does play a large part in that triangulation. And it’s ongoing.

You waffle back and forth between two version of "crookedness" that are at odds with each other.

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

It reminds me of a scriptural reference in the LDS canon where it is said that God makes weak things strong and that God may even choose those weak things to serve Him in His purposes. Some of the strongest people are those that traveled a squiggly line (hardship and trials) while God worked with them to show/teach them a 'better way'.

In one version, human agency and events out of the scope of God's control cause hardship and suffering. Presumably, he finds some subtle way to help us, for instance, he inspires a missionary to knock on a door and begins the straightening process. But this is incompatible with many of your other insights such as:

If God could make a crooked line function as a straight one by redefining the geometry, the frame of reference, or the purpose, how would that enter into the original "God can write straight with crooked lines"?

Is it true that in non-Euclidean geometry, for example, that a "straight line" can curve across a sphere? What looks crooked in one system is straight in another.

Situational ethics "that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another" is a completely different animal. Note the bolded -- in your "2.0" version, "sins" and "injustice" aren't really "sins" and "injustice" but really "righteousness" and "justice" when advanced geometry is understood.

Case study: Joseph Smith and polygamy.

In version one, we could argue Joseph Smith had many failures as a person. Foremost, he was a womanizer and a control freak, was prone to lie to advance his own agenda. For instance, he lied about an angel with a flaming sword insisting he marry an underage girl. But God can use a person with weaknesses. Perhaps Joseph also had some rare talent, and despite these failings, with the Lord's guidance, he was able to restore the church and lay the foundation for the kingdom. "weak things become strong"

In version two, there really was an angel with a flaming sword commanding Joseph Smith to marry an underage girl because, as Joseph Smith has explained, that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another. Joseph Smith wasn't a womanizer at all, or a control freak, or prone to lie. God was commanding Joseph Smith to do something which appeared to be a sin, but once higher geometry is understood, was really a sacred and righteous thing.

When I say God can redefine the geometry or the frame of reference, I am talking about how the overall narrative can still end up coherent and redemptive, not about sin being righteousness in disguise.

I do not claim that an act which looks like exploitation becomes automatically righteous just because it can be placed in a larger providential story. The moral evaluation of particular acts still matter.

God works with genuinely crooked lines rather than redefining crooked as straight. Why He would choose to work through the weak things of the world is an interesting question that I haven't seen a lot of discussion about.

Only why He wouldn't/shouldn't. Why is that?

Regards,
MG

[bill4long]

Who knows? I might be able to gain your trust.

I've said repeatedly that I'm as transparent as they get.

Regards,
MG

I’d offer this as a epistemic summary that you can use, free of charge: “It works for me, therefore it’s true.”

I wonder if he* knows he's a pragmatist.

* I don't know MG's gender.

[bill4long]

Where/when there are questions about straight vs. crookedness in the scriptures, you’re right, that is what a prophet (authorities) are for. Essentially continuing that ‘triangulating process’ in real time. Cultural context does play a large part in that triangulation. And it’s ongoing.

You waffle back and forth between two version of "crookedness" that are at odds with each other.

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

It reminds me of a scriptural reference in the LDS canon where it is said that God makes weak things strong and that God may even choose those weak things to serve Him in His purposes. Some of the strongest people are those that traveled a squiggly line (hardship and trials) while God worked with them to show/teach them a 'better way'.

In one version, human agency and events out of the scope of God's control cause hardship and suffering. Presumably, he finds some subtle way to help us, for instance, he inspires a missionary to knock on a door and begins the straightening process. But this is incompatible with many of your other insights such as:

If God could make a crooked line function as a straight one by redefining the geometry, the frame of reference, or the purpose, how would that enter into the original "God can write straight with crooked lines"?

Is it true that in non-Euclidean geometry, for example, that a "straight line" can curve across a sphere? What looks crooked in one system is straight in another.

Situational ethics "that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another" is a completely different animal. Note the bolded -- in your "2.0" version, "sins" and "injustice" aren't really "sins" and "injustice" but really "righteousness" and "justice" when advanced geometry is understood.

Case study: Joseph Smith and polygamy.

In version one, we could argue Joseph Smith had many failures as a person. Foremost, he was a womanizer and a control freak, was prone to lie to advance his own agenda. For instance, he lied about an angel with a flaming sword insisting he marry an underage girl. But God can use a person with weaknesses. Perhaps Joseph also had some rare talent, and despite these failings, with the Lord's guidance, he was able to restore the church and lay the foundation for the kingdom. "weak things become strong"

In version two, there really was an angel with a flaming sword commanding Joseph Smith to marry an underage girl because, as Joseph Smith has explained, that which is wrong in one situation may be right in another. Joseph Smith wasn't a womanizer at all, or a control freak, or prone to lie. God was commanding Joseph Smith to do something which appeared to be a sin, but once higher geometry is understood, was really a sacred and righteous thing.

This post put a smile on my face. Thanks.

[Gadianton]

God works with genuinely crooked lines rather than redefining crooked as straight. Why He would choose to work through the weak things of the world is an interesting question that I haven't seen a lot of discussion about.

Only why He wouldn't/shouldn't. Why is that?

First of all, I don't buy that you aren't trying to get Joseph Smith off the hook since many times you've noted questionable history, and so you must mean either history is wrong, or that it's accurate but true morality is not properly understood. But giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could mean the 1.0 version --

If he chooses to work through weak things, the most obvious reason would be the "shock value" of doing so. The scriptures say, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" If a person is a real deadbeat, then God proves his power all the more by using that guy to bring his purpose. If a genius proves a hard math conjecture, sure okay. But if some total rube does it, then how could it be without the help of God?

[MG 2.0]

God works with genuinely crooked lines rather than redefining crooked as straight. Why He would choose to work through the weak things of the world is an interesting question that I haven't seen a lot of discussion about.

Only why He wouldn't/shouldn't. Why is that?

First of all, I don't buy that you aren't trying to get Joseph Smith off the hook since many times you've noted questionable history, and so you must mean either history is wrong, or that it's accurate but true morality is not properly understood. But giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could mean the 1.0 version --

If he chooses to work through weak things, the most obvious reason would be the "shock value" of doing so. The scriptures say, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" If a person is a real deadbeat, then God proves his power all the more by using that guy to bring his purpose. If a genius proves a hard math conjecture, sure okay. But if some total rube does it, then how could it be without the help of God?

I wouldn't put Joseph Smith into the "total rube' category. Just as I wouldn't to that to anyone on this board except for one or two people.

Shock value? Maybe.

Some other possibilities:

1. Making His power, not the messenger, the point.
2. Preserving humility and dependence.
3. Protecting real faith and freedom.
4. Making the message accessible and relatable.
5.Exposing what we really value.

Joseph had his weaknesses. He also had his strengths. Those strengths ultimately played at least some small part in the organization of the church we see today. Even after traveling through and along some crooked roads/paths to get here.

God can write straight using crooked lines.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

First of all, I don't buy that you aren't trying to get Joseph Smith off the hook since many times you've noted questionable history, and so you must mean either history is wrong, or that it's accurate but true morality is not properly understood. But giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could mean the 1.0 version --

If he chooses to work through weak things, the most obvious reason would be the "shock value" of doing so. The scriptures say, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" If a person is a real deadbeat, then God proves his power all the more by using that guy to bring his purpose. If a genius proves a hard math conjecture, sure okay. But if some total rube does it, then how could it be without the help of God?

I wouldn't put Joseph Smith into the "total rube' category. Just as I wouldn't to that to anyone on this board except for one or two people.

Shock value? Maybe.

Some other possibilities:

1. Making His power, not the messenger, the point.
2. Preserving humility and dependence.
3. Protecting real faith and freedom.
4. Making the message accessible and relatable.
5.Exposing what we really value.

Joseph had his weaknesses. He also had his strengths. Those strengths ultimately played at least some small part in the organization of the church we see today. Even after traveling through and along some crooked roads/paths to get here.

God can write straight using crooked lines.

Regards,
MG

Well look at that—agreement on circular logic and on Joseph being crooked all in the same day. I’m proud of you MG.