God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

Back to my original post and my past writings having to do with the Sorites Paradox.

Questions that could be considered:

How much "crookedness' can exist before the line is no longer straight?

How much imperfection can exist in a prophet, institution, doctrine, or history before it stops being "divinely inspired"?

The Sorites Paradox (problem) might dictate that:

One flaw doesn't negate divine guidance. Another flaw doesn't negate it. Another still doesn't. But at SOME POINT, critics argue that accumulation DOES negate it.

And of utmost importance, all the while, as we are traveling crooked lines, God...who is in the midst of all things...is able to make (our) paths (and humanities') straight.

It comes back to the 5d thing gadianton was talking about and I referred to earlier. Things get rather complex REAL FAST when trying to determine how much crookedness is an acceptable amount (Sorites) before we call out the Creator. Again, on the hypothetical assumption being made here, that a creator God exists.

Who has the qualifications to specify or 'call out' the exact threshold in all of this? That is the problem that lies at the root of the paradox.

Regards,
MG

You guys are moving so fast and far beyond where I can contribute. I'm not complaining about it! I can see how I am going to spend my first day of the year tomorrow - responding to ideas presented here! Lol! OK, let me see if I am grasping what it is you are getting to MG....

With the Sorites paradox you appear to be applying this logic to divine guidance instead of sand. The actual issue therefore is - "How much imperfection can exist before we are justified in saying 'this is no longer divinely guided'? And you bring in prophets, institutions, doctrines, history, etc. I presume you are not just saying with this that imperfection is fine. No, there is more to it than that. In reality, there is no clear, objective threshold where divine inspiration suddenly switches off. So, as analogies with the sand grains, One flaw doesn’t do it. Ten flaws don’t do it. A hundred flaws… maybe? But, and here is the crux, who decides where that line is? So, if I am understanding your idea of God writing with crooked lines, you're not saying everything is equally good or that evil doesn't matter. You may not even be saying that criticism is invalid. The issue with you appears to me to be that God’s activity might operate at a scale or dimension (your “5D” metaphor) where local crookedness does not cancel out global direction. We humans see zig zags, but God sees trajectory. You hug onto complexity for this reason I think. But you also appear to me to be shifting the burden of proof here. You are asking who is qualified to say exactly when divine guidance is no longer present? The obvious answer also seems to me to be with us, its going to end up being arbitrary. Apparently on your take of things, the accumulation of flaws creates a philosophical problem, not an easy refutation. This is why you like calling it a paradox.

This is reasonable in my estimation. I think there isn't a non-arbitrary point where accumulated flaws let us declare "this is no longer divinely guided". That leaves it to individual conclusions based upon one's own experience and knowledge. Those that say "this is too crooked" are drawing a line/level in the Sorites pile to say "this is too much". I think you are agreeing that this is the 'crux' of the matter. I agree when you say that God may operate at a scale or “dimension” where local crookedness does not cancel global direction and “we humans see zig zags, but God sees trajectory.”

OK, so, I want to bring in Tolkien, not because I think he has the last word, nor because I think I am interpreting him accurately either. There is a lot of depth to the man's philosophy and theology and he spent decades developing it in spectacular story form. But humor me here for a minute. From my reading of Tolkien I believe he would agree with you that when someone fails in whatever they are doing, that does not automatically mean meaning itself is lost or fails. So to use your image, crooked paths do not cancel direction. And the reason appears to be more than obvious actually, because we simply don't see the whole story, nor can we. The finite cannot fathom let alone even possibly grasp the infinite.

OK. I like that.

You focus more on the when we know to reject divine guidance...

I'm not sure I understand why you are thinking this is what I'm thinking.

...while Tolkien, me thinks, focuses on moral agency of individuals (and groups! at times... what responsibility remains regardless).

This I am in alignment with.

Tolkien doesn't say “You can’t tell when guidance fails, so trust it anyway.”

I don't think that I, for one, would agree with trusting any guidance from anywhere all the time with no questions asked. But I think I know where you're going with this.

What he does say is “Even if guidance exists, you are never relieved of moral responsibility.”

I agree.

What this means, and I suspect the beginning of the difference in your preferred system of theology - e.g., Mormonism, is Tolkien never lets authority override conscience...

Again, I agree.

...nor does he ever excuse evil because it fits a larger arc (it's part of God's Plan).

That's where the Sorites Paradox kicks in. Also God writing straight with crooked lines. In LDS theology the lines are straight on the 'Plan of Salvation' chart we grew up with. The paths that actual people may take to get there are rather crooked and arbitrary when compared with what the 'ideal' and 'chart path' might dictate. This applies to so many things. There is the ideal. There are the correlated doctrines. And then there is reality. Reality is like a curvature in space. Try and get a handle on it without a 'bird's eye' view, will ya'.

Tolkien as well never tells victims “this was acceptable crookedness.”

Crookedness isn't "acceptable", but it may be explainable.

Now this means however, that, unlike yourself, Tolkien avoids the danger of the Sorites move being used to excuse harm. If no one can ever say “this is too crooked,” then who can protest something on moral grounds? I think Tolkien's strategy was to separate two questions. Is meaning still possible? He says yes. Is this action justified? Here he says no. And yet......and YET, meaning still survives without permission.

To be clear, I make no excuses for harm that is done. I do think that explanations are possible. Those explanations may be local/arbitrary and subject to judgement from the perspective of ONE who has not only a local view but a bird's eye/global/eternal view. That's where the God can write with crooked lines again comes into the 'picture'. The picture is one that God can step back from or look over at and determine 'what the heck is going on here'.

I'm coming at this, granted, from the position that what the canon of scripture says in regard to God's power and omniscience. The "He's got the whole wide world in His hands" idea. Old song. Remember it?

Would I be fair in saying that you are proposing because there is no non-arbitrary threshold where imperfection cancels divine guidance, humans are not clearly qualified to declare when God has ceased to be at work, even when history looks messy and broken? I see that as a thoughtful position, it's not a trap question I'm asking you.

I think that from what I've said thus far you can see that this would be a reasonable position to take in my opinion.

As an instructional contrast, so far as I can understand from my reading, Tolkien accepts that meaning may persist through broken history, but he refuses to let that persistence excuse, justify, or silence moral resistance to what is broken (hence the moral indignation against critics who find fault with leaders, or something immoral in the system, or financially immoral, etc. being taught as being wickedness because leaders say it is, is a canard and false).

The thing is, in the instance/example (I know this is where your mind is centered/focused right now) of the LDS Church as an institution it becomes a matter, again, of the Sorites Paradox and God writing straight with crooked lines. Since the judgement any one person outside the system lacking full knowledge is going to be arbitrary I think that it is wise to have a certain amount of trust in the 'larger plan' or mission of the church knowing that God can work with finite beings that have biases, weaknesses, and intelligence in one area/thing and not another, etc. Agency factors in also as to the consequences of that agency (exercised by those in authority). Sorites again...is a greater good being done than greater evil? Can God make crooked lines straight as a result of humans doing less than perfect things?

And that's a difference. He agrees with the complexity and the humility, to be sure, but he also insists that moral responsibility never dissolves into paradox. Tolkien's safeguard is important. No amount of “crooked lines” ever authorizes doing harm or ignoring it (as Mormonism does with so many issues it faces in our day). And that’s why Tolkien remains such a powerful moral compass, while Mormonism as a religious system seems to me to be a compromise of morals shifted to obedience as the only law worth following. I was taught for hundreds of lessons (literally) in my youth, as I know you were as well, that obedience is the first law of heaven, when, now that we both have matured a bit, know that is obviously a false doctrine. The Bible never teaches that obedience is the first law of heaven; it teaches that love is, and obedience only matters when it flows from love rather than replacing it.

Again, I don't excuse those things that I might personally disagree with and/or think there might be lack of moral clarity in decision making. What I am willing to do is cut others slack knowing that they, like me, are imperfect and flawed individuals doing the best they can at each moment in time that they are doing whatever they do. God can work with that, in my opinion.

The question for me, and always has been(in the instance of the SL LDS church), is this God's church? Is it that organization place here in order to do an important part of His work on this earth. Not that it is the only thing going on or the only work that is important. Different, but extremely important.

I've determined that the chances of this being so are significantly greater that the answer is in the affirmative rather than the opposite. I fully understand why/how others may see things differently. I respect that.

What I don't respect is the vitriol and/or hate on either side that supplants understanding and at least and effort to 'love thy brother/sister'. I can do better at that.

I love your thoughts, Philo. They are interesting and fun to read. I may not be able to respond to all of them since your volume of what you have to say exceeds the time I have to keep it going. I hope others are responding to your "Tolkienese" and joining the party also.

I'll join in where I can.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Philo. Philo.

Sincere thanks for providing such excellent essays on Tolkin. I read and learn and feel resonance with the ideas you present.

Freedom is a primary value. I gather because it is intragal part of love.

[MG 2.0]

There is no lament that Melkor in his evil way has ruined my plan! Iluvatar actually proclaims that you cannot escape meaning, but you do remain responsible for what you choose. Notice what this is not. There is no micromanaging here. There is no punishment. It certainly is not outcome- optimization. What we have here is sovereignty which is not forced. So, O.K., what's the point? Melkor cannot see the whole. He mistakes disruption for dominance. His mental failure is not realizing that the music can grow without becoming coerced.

Interesting. I wonder what that looks like when having to manage a Macro institution at a Micro level. I wonder how Melkor would manage an international institution and keep it together without things falling apart?

Freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse does not cancel meaning though it may cause irreparable harm. And Tolkien never pretends otherwise.

I am in alignment with this. We see examples of this even in the LDS church at a leadership level relative to the membership. Freedom isn't free in these instances. There are ramifications and then course corrections when necessary to bring things into alignments with God's will (personal belief).

The perspective Tolkien develops here is that evil is not instrumental. Suffering is not justified.

Can it operate and/or be two things at the same time? Or three...or four? This world is a multiplayer game with many moving parts. Many crooked lines being drawn. Many piles being added to and subtracted from.

Victims are not collateral. God is not optimizing pain. We discover that meaning is preserved without explaining suffering. That’s why Melkor is later judged not for causing the discord per se, but for persisting in domination for refusing harmony, and continually refusing humility.

I think that within the Christian belief system this is where Christ's Atonement comes into the grand picture.

You ask us to assume a loving Creator who desires the greatest good. Tolkien answers: The “greatest good” is not maximal pleasure (read "joy").
It is freedom held open for all to be who and what they are.

Exactly. And this applies to EVERYBODY. Even a Hitler. A Pol Pot. Even a Laman and Lemuel.

It is about relationship rather than control, or determining who gets to sing and who doesn't, or who gets to stay, and who is to be banished into outer darkness for disagreement described as wickedness as sons of perdition. It is working with faithfulness rather than correctness, as well as with meaning rather than explanation.

I sincerely wonder if in the 'final judgement' (whatever that really/actually entails) whether there will be many more that get to sing their own song in their own way and will have a place to do it and be happy doing so.

In the Ainulindalë: Creation is not protected from tragedy. God does not intervene (go to war) to “fix” outcomes based on choices not aligned with God's (read elohim), yet God also does not abandon the world. That appears to me to be the middle ground your thread has been circling.

I see it as central to God's plan.

What you’re offering the discussion is not an argument against skepticism.

No person can argue, successfully, against another's skepticism. They can only give reasons to offer hope.

You’re offering:

a model where God is loving without being coercive, meaningful without being manipulative, sovereign without being a decision-procedure, and crucially, a Creator who does not punish discord immediately because punishment is not how meaning is preserved. That alone distinguishes Tolkien sharply from many real-world systems many here are rightly rejecting, including yours.

I don't understand why you're saying that. LDS theology allows for a God who allows everyone to be 'the best they can be'.

Tolkien’s Ainulindalë imagines a loving Creator who does not prevent discord, does not punish it immediately, and does not explain it away, yet does not lose sovereignty.

Which would be my position.

Melkor’s freedom to disrupt is fully honored...

Complete agency.

...but so is the unfolding of meaning beyond any single will.

Yes!

It’s not that evil is necessary for good, but that freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse doesn’t cancel the music though it can wound it deeply.
That's what keeps victims safe. That keeps reason intact. As well as keeping hope breathable.

Profound, in some respects. The only caveat I would take would be to ask, "Can one know the good without experiencing the opposite?"

So, I'm not importing Tolkien to prove God. What I am attempting to show here is what kind of God would be morally coherent if one existed at all. The Ainulindalë clearly is not to be looked at as something to be comforted by, but it is Tolkien's moral architecture for his universe.

And yes it contrasts beautifully with systems that must explain suffering, punish dissent, or claim certainty. Tolkien has none of that baggage.

Good stuff, right?

Like I said earlier, I read "Rings" years ago. Seen the movies. What a mind! What a philosopher!

OK. I think I better move on. Thanks for your response, Philo. Best wishes in your journey.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

I also enjoyed Philo's explanation of LOTR. The main thing it makes me think about is the fantasy genre. How does fantasy frame an explanation for the world vs. sci fi and other fiction? God seems not to be allowed, just magic. The problem with magic is that it's a wildcard; can do anything. So you've got to invent rules for the magic, but then it's not really magic, so what is it? It's not science. It's not God or straightforward morality.

TL;DR: Your critique fits fantasy that treats magic as a wildcard, but Tolkien explicitly rejects that model. In Middle-earth, power is never neutral, never free, and never consequence-free. What people call “magic” is really moral participation in reality craftsmanship, domination, preservation and it always carries cost. God isn’t replaced by magic; divine micromanagement is removed so agency, tragedy, and responsibility remain intact. That’s why Tolkien’s moral world isn’t arbitrary.

Tolkien doesn’t replace God with magic; he replaces moral shortcuts with consequence.

So, now, here below is the honest, emotional full view for those interested. It IS why I believe Tolkien makes a difference...

Ha! Good insights. With Tolkien there appears to me to be a difference however. I think for religions (shall we just come out and say it? Churches) this could be problematic, but Tolkien seems to have set it up differently. In his letter to Naomi Mitchison #155 (Letters, 2023 ed., p. 295-296) He indicated he did not want to get involved in arguing about its reality vs falsity. But he did make a note to tell us his inclinations with it. He compared it briefly (all too briefly) with goeteia. He notes that "Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se) and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se) but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other free wills." I won't go into a lot of the details, unless, of course, I am forced to here. Let me give you an over view of Tolkien's aspect of it.

It appears that what you are objecting to is somehow fantasy excludes God (at least explicitly). And its run around the end is putting magic in place of God in a story. So, since it can do anything, it's a wildcard, but since magic has rules it stops being magic and this is what destroys moral seriousness, so fantasy is hardly a suitable middle ground. It's not science, theology or morality rather it's just narrative convenience.

This is a problem with Tolkien's world powered by magic rather than God or science. Hence the moral structure is just arbitrary. I get that. It's not a bad critique as such. But it's incomplete so far as Tolkien would suggest. The thing is this is all correct with most fantasy stories, so why not with Tolkien as well? Well, so far as I can tell, Tolkien doesn't invoke magic as a plot fix anywhere as most fantasy stories do. It doesn't invent power on demand in impossible situations either. It most certainly never undermines moral consequences, Tolkien has left those in place, much to our own discomforts, as letters from clergy to Tolkien on this demonstrate. I guess I just don't see magic being used as a wildcard in Tolkien at all. There is something much more interesting involved. We know this because he explicitly rejected this wildcard fix all situations motif in his letter to Naomi Hutchison, among others.

I don't mean to always appear to suggest Tolkien gets it right all the time while all others miss the boat, and sometimes he is rather subtle, but in this instance how he sets up magic is not as a force to wield and improve one's conditions, but it is more in line with a mode of being. Magic as what one is as it were. What people call “magic” in Middle-earth is craftsmanship, sub-creation, their alignment with nature, their possession of authority because of who they are and what they stand for, it is more or less rooted in character, not power.

We don't see the Dungeons & Dragons kind of magic going on here. No elves actually cast spells. When I realized that in a re-reading, I was amazed. Instead we find them singing, preserving and shaping. Gandalf actually doesn't ever override reality in any meaningful way. Not when he confronts the Balrog on the Bridge of Kazal Dum, neither when he comes from the East with the reinforcements helping defeat the Uruk Hai at Helms Deep. And his down to earth help made all the difference, not any hocus-pocus magic junk. Gandalf isn't making himself different and separating from reality so much as just participating in it.
The hilarious scene in the movie where they first start out on their adventure and Bilbo catches up with the dwarves on the trail a few miles outside the Shire because he slept in, and getting on the horse, and then the rain downpour, and they are all dripping and literally soaking wet and cold and miserable. Bilbo asks Gandalf something like "Can't you turn this rain off wizard?" And Gandalf ruefully looks back at him from on his horse and replies "If you want miracles, I'm afraid you're going to have to find a different wizard." There's a punch in that! If it rains, even the wizard gets wet.

I think as a general rule it's why Tolkien disliked the word “magic” altogether because he rightly intuited it confused readers. So, as a means of understanding it within Tolkien's worldview of his Legendarium, we could say that science manipulates reality from the outside. You know, it treats the world as raw material. But wildcard magic would break the rules and suspend consequences. It makes for a snug convenience as it were. This isn't Tolkien's model. With his view power flows from who you are not what you can do. One's abilities are costly, not free. If you abuse the power, it will diminish, (Amen to the priesthood of that man!). And the big one Tolkien notes again and again is domination of others always corrupts. The Ring is the clearest example of this. It steadily works consistently. It always corrupts and never solves any problems that it promises to in fact, solve. That's not a wildcard, that's a moral law. Now, on the other hand God is "absent" in the story, but he is not excluded. In Tolkien's world Eru Iluvatar exists. Providence exists.. Moral order exists. But there is something that Tolkien refuses here. There is no divine micromanagement going on underneath the surface or behind the scenes. There are no moral override commands made from on High to change something, as like in the Bible over and over again. No miracles ever cancel a person's agency. What we see instead is God is removed as a control, but God is still the ground of it all. God is not removed as in being replaced with hocus pocus. That's deliberate I believe. Tolkien made sure in his set up that this would allow moral seriousness without coercion. We might even say influence directly from God on High - we never once anywhere ever hear of Eru Iluvatar coming down to converse or instruct, plan, or change anything with Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, or any of the powerful beings in the story good or evil. This turns out to be Tolkien's strength.

If he had used straight forward morality we would see direct and clear commands, guaranteed outcomes, we would even see the biblical doctrine of obedience equals righteousness. You know, the Abraham type stuff, which is blessedly, entirely foreign to the Legendarium. But Tolkien saw it differently. Because what these all do is they collapse the virtue Tolkien wanted the people to have through their own into compliance with an outside being, such as God. And THE KEY THIS DOES WHICH TOLKIEN WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH IS - IT REMOVES TRAGEDY. It also excuses harm "for the greater good," Something we never see in Tolkien. That is entirely foreign to his ethics and morality. The advantage is showing us what moral clarity actually looks like and is, since there are no moral shortcuts. What we see is in some cases terrible responsibility without guarantees of any kind. We see meaning that is had and believed that has no proof. It is why, as I noted in another post, Frodo can fail and still matter.

So, while I empathize with your thinking that fantasy morality is arbitrary since magic lacks grounding, with Tolkien power never escapes moral cost. While it does take time, the fact is demonstrated that domination always backfires. And the icing on the cake, even to the consternation of some within the story (and hence, with us who are reading it and demand social justice) mercy always matters. One of the singular most astonishing parts of the tale is the Scouring of the Shire chapter which just infuriated me to no end, I was LIVID when Saruman attempted to kill Frodo with a sneaky stab of his knife, and Frodo forbade them killing him! I went berzerk! KILL THAT BASTARD WHO DESTROYED SO MUCH OF THEIR LIVES, THEIR WORLD, THEIR PEACE, and then mocks them to their faces, and THEN....THEN!!!, attempts to murder them anyway?!? BAH!!!! Get rid of him, NOW! There is literally NO ONE more deserving if just pure death - and the more painful, the better! Oh I went on a very loud verbal tirade that would curdle your blood, marching back and forth through the house......(my poor wife.....anyway)...... Frodo said no to it. Well, I mean all I could do is sputter for days. I came to realize then that Tolkien is precisely for people like me who would cave and give out vengeance. JUSTIFIED vengeance and solve the problem by eliminating the evil forever. Kill it. Yet, in letting him go, his end was swift, and......AND His curse... his evil blood... did NOT fall on Frodo after all or the Shire, because Frodo showed mercy. I mean, my God, nothing in scripture can match that that for me. I burbled and hacked and spun around for days getting that one into me. Tolkien's far sighted solution is still utterly breath-taking for me personally.

With all that, the other thing that is sobering to me is that outcomes have no guarantee. Literally, there is no magic cure or dismissal of consequences. Nothing "just works" because the plot needs it to. Tolkien never short changes us with that cheap and easy out. Crimany, Tolkien's world is over-constrained in my opinion.

So, over all, I think your concern applies to fantasy that uses magic as a wildcard, but Tolkien explicitly rejects that model. In Middle-earth, power is never neutral, never free, and never, ever consequence-free. What people call “magic” is really moral participation in the world, craftsmanship, domination, preservation, and it always means there is a cost. God isn’t excluded; divine micromanagement is. That’s what keeps agency and responsibility intact. You are circling an important question. "What grounds moral coherence if God doesn’t intervene and power exists?" Tolkien’s answer appears to me to be subtle but firm: Power is morally charged. When it is abused and used wickedly it corrupts on personal levels. The big one that I have discovered in Tolkien and I am still trying to come to grips with because he SHOWS it so incredibly powerfully is mercy alters the future. It was not power that saved Middle-earth from the One Ring, it was mercy. That just utterly blows my mind how Tolkien pulled that off with grace, coherence, and with a stellar plot, for which he invented the word, Eucatastrophe. Another part of this is how meaning occurs. It's weird because Tolkien does not guarantee meaning in any manner, yet it is there. It is never thwarted. This isn't fantasy hand-waving to provide meaning either, it is deeply, profoundly ingrained whether someone wins or loses, whether things turn out "right" or "wrong" etc. That seems to me to be moral architecture. And its not a fob job off of other scripture either. It is not a linking to a theological system Tolkien personally favored and want to defend. It is straight up moral clarity and honesty... all the way to the consequences. And it’s exactly why Tolkien keeps breaking stalemates where other systems fail.

[Gadianton]

So, Limnor, going back to my thoughts about this "8-ball" version of confirmation by the HG, the most formative church media production by far for those of my generation was the correlation thriller, How rare a possession. The feature story is that of Vincenzo Di Francesca, who discovered the book with the cover burned off and so he didn't know who produced it. He studied it for forty years until connecting with the Mormon missionaries and becoming Mormon. This is the ultimate story of a first order testimony of the Book of Mormon. As opposed to yourself, Vincenzo was absolutely taken in by the stories and teachings, and alive with those good feelings due to careful reading and study. I think Mormons would love for this to be the norm. I don't think they carefully think about how different that story is from what the missionaries present as the model. I don't recall if he formally took the "Moroni challenge", he might have, or the film may have thrown it in for good measure. But it's quite redundant in that context.

But, the 8-ball version certainly has it's place in a good story. I just thought of a good one. On my mission, we knocked on the door of a wealthy home and this woman answered, and it turns out she was Mormon. She was nervous because her husband would flip if he came home and we were there. Turns out, they were converts. Missionaries had came to their door long ago. The husband read the Book of Mormon but more like you, wasn't taken in by it. But he continued to read it and pray obsessively to know if it was true or not. He eventually got his answer in the affirmative. The lady was very cautious in her wording, but I felt she was trying to say that he claimed to have eventually been visited by an angel and told in no uncertain terms it was true. He converted, took the whole family to church, and became a bishop nearly over night. A few years later, a business deal with other members went south and he left bitter and angry.

[MG 2.0]

The testimony is really the only argument that Mormons have left. They have no rational, historical, scientific, or theological arguments that stand up to any degree of scrutiny--so it's all on reliant on the knowledge that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. "It's true because my testimony tells me that it's true, nothing else really matters." When pressed on this, it's followed with "I've had experiences that showed me the truth. You need to understand that these are experiences are too sacred to discuss, so I can't talk about them."

I would disagree with your characterization. It is too limiting.

In this regard, the Mormon testimony is the ultimate straightener of crooked lines.

How are you defining "crooked lines"? Again, I think you may be rather limited in what you might be viewing through your lens?

In the Mormon mind, no other religion, no devotee of any other faith, neither does nor even can have this experience regarding their own beliefs.

Untrue. Matter of fact. Go to YouTube for starters. I won't link here because I'll be accused of link and run.

An Evangelical or Muslim might believe, but their beliefs cannot hold a candle to the level of absolute belief that's the testimony that's given to Mormons.

Again, I think you are WAY too restricted in your pigeon holing.

Note how MG retreats to what he sees as a this bedrock of belief--a knowledge that is only given to him and his fellow religionists. Other believers in a 'creator God' may have some hint of it, but nothing like the truths that are known by those who are LDS.

I think you are creating a false characterization that is not fully fleshed out. I would think that having read my posts over the years you would be able to see I am not a 'card board cut out'.

This thread ought to give to some indication of that. I think you read some of what I have to say and disregard or ignore the rest.

Nod (not for the first time) to Simon and Garfunkel.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

The testimony is really the only argument that Mormons have left. They have no rational, historical, scientific, or theological arguments that stand up to any degree of scrutiny--so it's all on reliant on the knowledge that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. "It's true because my testimony tells me that it's true, nothing else really matters." When pressed on this, it's followed with "I've had experiences that showed me the truth. You need to understand that these are experiences are too sacred to discuss, so I can't talk about them."

In this regard, the Mormon testimony is the ultimate straightener of crooked lines. In the Mormon mind, no other religion, no devotee of any other faith, neither does nor even can have this experience regarding their own beliefs. An Evangelical or Muslim might believe, but their beliefs cannot hold a candle to the level of absolute belief that's the testimony that's given to Mormons. Note how MG retreats to what he sees as a this bedrock of belief--a knowledge that is only given to him and his fellow religionists. Other believers in a 'creator God' may have some hint of it, but nothing like the truths that are known by those who are LDS.

And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....

[MG 2.0]

The testimony is really the only argument that Mormons have left. They have no rational, historical, scientific, or theological arguments that stand up to any degree of scrutiny--so it's all on reliant on the knowledge that is the gift of the Holy Ghost. "It's true because my testimony tells me that it's true, nothing else really matters." When pressed on this, it's followed with "I've had experiences that showed me the truth. You need to understand that these are experiences are too sacred to discuss, so I can't talk about them."

In this regard, the Mormon testimony is the ultimate straightener of crooked lines. In the Mormon mind, no other religion, no devotee of any other faith, neither does nor even can have this experience regarding their own beliefs. An Evangelical or Muslim might believe, but their beliefs cannot hold a candle to the level of absolute belief that's the testimony that's given to Mormons. Note how MG retreats to what he sees as a this bedrock of belief--a knowledge that is only given to him and his fellow religionists. Other believers in a 'creator God' may have some hint of it, but nothing like the truths that are known by those who are LDS.

And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....

One question that might be asked is, "Is having a spiritual witness a shortcut to truth?"

I think that would open up a whole lot of varying opinions.

It looks like this thing I referred to in my posts to you, Philo, called "arbitrariness" enters in, right? Thank goodness that God can write straight with crooked lines and that 'heaps' of testimony are not dependent on one grain of sand.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Philo, when you have the time I hope that you might respond to and comment to my two posts that I created responding to you on the page previous to this one...back on pg.17

I enjoy your pushback and perspective.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

And much to my own astonishment, it is precisely this moral "shortcut" that Tolkien utterly rejects, and makes us face consequences we hope testimony obliterates. I tell you straight, it is the singular most powerful thing about Tolkien I have ever found.....

One question that might be asked is, "Is having a spiritual witness a shortcut to truth?"

One might also ask what constitutes a “spiritual witness” such that it cannot be confused with a sensation brought on by confirmation bias?