God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t think the question here is God or no God. What I’ve found valuable in Tolkien is that he explores how moral responsibility operates even when metaphysical certainty is absent or unresolved. That seems to create space for faith without requiring moral shortcuts.

I agree with that in regard to your particular contributions to the discussion and bringing in Tolkien. Tolkien’s moral universe doesn’t depend on burning bosom certainty or metaphysical guarantees. The CofJCofLDS does proclaim that as an axiom of firm/unquestioned belief. I'll hand you that.

In Tolkien is it true that the characters rarely have perfect knowledge? If so, even with a 'bosom certainty' that members of the church are encouraged to receive I think there is still room for less than perfect knowledge.

A difference, of course, is that in Tolkien the characters act their morality without knowing a "cosmic plan" and their actions/faith are expressed through choices made, not proofs.

Ideally, Tolkien's universe might be preferable in some ways. The question I asked earlier is how would that work in the world that we actually live in at large scale? As it is, without a 'carrot stick' many people say, "Screw it, I'm gonna do whatever I dang well want!" Of course, others will choose moral behavior because it is intrinsic to them.

Religion has its pro's and con's. I think, personally, that is all allowed for in "crooked paths".

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

For me the obsession is more about how it was written. I’ve said before I think it’s “true,” but I can’t read it without picturing Joseph, Oliver, and others in it. Seeing Joseph, Oliver, and the others in the text doesn’t flatten it; it really adds flavor to the book. There’s less detachment to me as a lived artifact, a document with fingerprints, motives, and seams

I don't think the membership is ready for your version of truth, but if you ever do share it inside the chapel doors, I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

[Philo Sofee]

I don’t think the question here is God or no God. What I’ve found valuable in Tolkien is that he explores how moral responsibility operates even when metaphysical certainty is absent or unresolved. That seems to create space for faith without requiring moral shortcuts.

I agree with that in regard to your particular contributions to the discussion and bringing in Tolkien. Tolkien’s moral universe doesn’t depend on burning bosom certainty or metaphysical guarantees. The CofJCofLDS does proclaim that as an axiom of firm/unquestioned belief. I'll hand you that.

In Tolkien is it true that the characters rarely have perfect knowledge? If so, even with a 'bosom certainty' that members of the church are encouraged to receive I think there is still room for less than perfect knowledge.

A difference, of course, is that in Tolkien the characters act their morality without knowing a "cosmic plan" and their actions/faith are expressed through choices made, not proofs.

Ideally, Tolkien's universe might be preferable in some ways. The question I asked earlier is how would that work in the world that we actually live in at large scale? As it is, without a 'carrot stick' many people say, "Screw it, I'm gonna do whatever I dang well want!" Of course, others will choose moral behavior because it is intrinsic to them.

Religion has its pro's and con's. I think, personally, that is all allowed for in "crooked paths".

Regards,
MG

I think that’s the key difference. Tolkien isn’t trying to design a system that guarantees good behavior at scale. He’s exploring what moral responsibility looks like when there are no guarantees including no cosmic plan, no certainty, no enforcement beyond conscience. Some people will still choose badly. Tolkien doesn’t deny that; he just refuses to let that justify moral shortcuts or domination.

[huckelberry]

Philo, your Tolkien stuff is pretty sweet. Thanks for brightening my day.

Philo has given us some of the best stuff I have read here in a while. Philo deserves thanks for sure.

I have actually not read Tolkin and Philo is making it clear I have missed out. I remember way back to high school when some folks were all absorbed by Tolkin. I wondered but kept my distance.

[MG 2.0]

I agree with that in regard to your particular contributions to the discussion and bringing in Tolkien. Tolkien’s moral universe doesn’t depend on burning bosom certainty or metaphysical guarantees. The CofJCofLDS does proclaim that as an axiom of firm/unquestioned belief. I'll hand you that.

In Tolkien is it true that the characters rarely have perfect knowledge? If so, even with a 'bosom certainty' that members of the church are encouraged to receive I think there is still room for less than perfect knowledge.

A difference, of course, is that in Tolkien the characters act their morality without knowing a "cosmic plan" and their actions/faith are expressed through choices made, not proofs.

Ideally, Tolkien's universe might be preferable in some ways. The question I asked earlier is how would that work in the world that we actually live in at large scale? As it is, without a 'carrot stick' many people say, "Screw it, I'm gonna do whatever I dang well want!" Of course, others will choose moral behavior because it is intrinsic to them.

Religion has its pro's and con's. I think, personally, that is all allowed for in "crooked paths".

Regards,
MG

I think that’s the key difference. Tolkien isn’t trying to design a system that guarantees good behavior at scale.

That's true even within religious systems, although the definition of "good' may be different from one group to another. Is this how God might 'track' progress among individuals? Just a thought.

He’s exploring what moral responsibility looks like when there are no guarantees including no cosmic plan, no certainty, no enforcement beyond conscience. Some people will still choose badly. Tolkien doesn’t deny that; he just refuses to let that justify moral shortcuts or domination.

Does Tolkien believe in providence?
Does he believe in a divine plan?
What does he believe about the basic 'nature' of the world's 'fabric of being'? Are mercy and pity interwoven into that fabric?

Even if the characters don't know the plan and do not have certainty in respect to why do this or why do that...from above...and that there are no guarantees, what you are saying is that moral behavior isn't necessarily an outlier.

Just as a sidenote, this sounds like the LDS teachings concerning the Light of Christ. Would you agree?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think that’s the key difference. Tolkien isn’t trying to design a system that guarantees good behavior at scale.

That's true even within religious systems, although the definition of "good' may be different from one group to another. Is this how God might 'track' progress among individuals? Just a thought.

He’s exploring what moral responsibility looks like when there are no guarantees including no cosmic plan, no certainty, no enforcement beyond conscience. Some people will still choose badly. Tolkien doesn’t deny that; he just refuses to let that justify moral shortcuts or domination.

Does Tolkien believe in providence?
Does he believe in a divine plan?
What does he believe about the basic 'nature' of the world's 'fabric of being'? Are mercy and pity interwoven into that fabric?

Even if the characters don't know the plan and do not have certainty in respect to why do this or why do that...from above...and that there are no guarantees, what you are saying is that moral behavior isn't necessarily an outlier.

Just as a sidenote, this sounds like the LDS teachings concerning the Light of Christ. Would you agree?

Regards,
MG

I may be misreading you, MG, but it feels like you want to make your framework the default standard—so if Tolkien doesn’t line up with it, the question, from that view, becomes whether Tolkien is incomplete or mistaken.

I’d hesitant to evaluate Tolkien by criteria he’s not using. Judging him through your predetermined framework may miss what he’s actually trying to show.

[Limnor]

I had a roommate at the y who had gotten confirmation about the girl he was to marry, and he said he wasn't attracted to her (rated her a 4), and was really in love with another girl who he'd dated of-and-on for years. I know another situation where two guys were after the same girl, the one guy who ended up with her was in love with her, but while knowing this, the second guy who lost out asked the first guy if he'd received "confirmation" that she was the one. Do you see how important it is to decouple first order feelings from this second order feeling, the second order manifestation-type feeling being a direct knowledge transfer from the HG? You can feel totally right about something but the Lord may know something you don't.

-snip-

Sure, God could tell us if something is true, why not? But in general praying and getting answers like this is like a tool every Christian recognizes from their own garage, but as one they never really had a need for.

I’m really trying to wrap my head around the HG confirmation vs the feeling that they were really in love with someone else. How does the “confirmation” part work?

Also, yes praying about the book was a part of my process, but I didn’t get any sort of burning or any other sort of feeling (aside from horror I suppose). But I do think answers were “revealed” to me, though those answers could just as easily be called historical study.

[Limnor]

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."

How does this play out? Same question as the one to Gad—how do they know it’s the HG?

[Limnor]

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?

Yes—this question from me too.

[Limnor]

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

That’s a fair epistemic question, but it’s not the one I’m trying to answer here. My concern isn’t whether spiritual witnesses are real or reducible to bias, but how certainty, however it is obtained, functions morally. Tolkien deliberately refuses any mechanism that guarantees correctness or overrides consequence. Even sincere certainty doesn’t exempt a person from tragedy, responsibility, or moral cost in his world.

This is excellent—I’m getting caught up on the thread and will stop posting now (with apologies for the spam).