God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Morley]

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?

It's kind of a trick. If you get the answer that the LDS Church and Book of Mormon are 'true,' then it was the Holy Ghost. If you don't get that answer, after all your prayers, then obviously you're doing something wrong. Something so wrong that the Holy Ghost can't speak to you.

When I was a young man trying to stay in the Church--trying to get a testimony, praying and fasting and paying tithing, desperate to get the confirmation that never came--I went to see my Stake President. He suggested that there had to be some moral failing in me; that I must have some secret sin that I wouldn't own up to. All he could come up with was that I must be masturbating--or at the very least, I must be thinking unclean thoughts. I would get my testimony when the thoughts were gone--and, in fact, he suggested that my testimony would be the proof that the unclean thoughts were finally gone.

[Philo Sofee]

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

Tolkien does believe in providence, but not as a system that tracks people’s behavior, gives step-by-step guidance, or guarantees good outcomes. In his stories, providence is something you can only recognize after events have happened, not something characters can consult like a rulebook or inner signal. Characters are not told what to do; they are judged by how faithfully they act, not by whether they succeed. Mercy and pity are part of how the world is built, but they never remove responsibility or turn goodness into simple obedience.

That’s why I’m hesitant to compare this to the LDS idea of the Light of Christ. In Tolkien, providence does not work like an inner compass that reliably points to the right choice, and it does not act as a system of divine supervision. It gives meaning in the background, but it does not instruct, control, or excuse actions. Moral clarity still has to be carried by imperfect people, making real choices, without guarantees.

[malkie]

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

It's kind of a trick. If you get the answer that the LDS Church and Book of Mormon are 'true,' then it was the Holy Ghost. If you don't get that answer, after all your prayers, then obviously you're doing something wrong. Something so wrong that the Holy Ghost can't speak to you.

When I was a young man trying to stay in the Church--trying to get a testimony, praying and fasting and paying tithing, desperate to get the confirmation that never came--I went to see my Stake President. He suggested that there had to be some moral failing in me; that I must have some secret sin that I wouldn't own up to. All he could come up with was that I must be masturbating--or at the very least, I must be thinking unclean thoughts. I would get my testimony when the thoughts were gone--and, in fact, he suggested that my testimony would be the proof that the unclean thoughts were finally gone.

Well‽‽ Don't just leave us hanging, Morley!

[Philo Sofee]

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.



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.

This is the same feeling I get with his materials he posts on this as well. He already assumes nothing compares to Mormonism which is the only true way, and therefore all things will fail in comparison or be lesser than. That is his unmoveable axiom regardless of the evidence. That's why I find Tolkien to be an astonishing antidote to this myopic way of seeing things.

[Whiskey]

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.

I appreciate this metaphor or logic. It applies to sports talking heads, politicians and many other professions and trades.

I look at HVAC and Mechanical engineering. I see a lot of people wanting and getting cookies for absolute garbage designs and installations. But, their framework for success is different from those of the occupants and owners. I suspect that all ideologies, arts, science and trades are subject to this conflict. Anyways. Nicely said.

[MG 2.0]

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.

This is the same feeling I get with his materials he posts on this as well. He already assumes nothing compares to Mormonism which is the only true way, and therefore all things will fail in comparison or be lesser than. That is his unmoveable axiom regardless of the evidence. That's why I find Tolkien to be an astonishing antidote to this myopic way of seeing things.

Don't take this wrong because it's not meant to be a slam against you or other critics. Here is what I've noticed over time in comments on this board. I'm not making this up. A believing person/poster is lessened in some way through saying something like what you just said. Myopic being just one of the descriptors used. There are many of them that have been used by various folks.

And almost regularly, along with that 'lessening' there comes the 'something else is better'. It's almost like critics can't stop doing the same thing they accuse LDS folks of doing Cheapening what someone values and believes and then claiming to have something better.

In this particular case, Tolkien. It could have just as well been something else or someone else. It could have been another word other than myopic. Anything is better than Mormonism or the Gospel of Jesus Christ as members refer to it.

It doesn't do anything for the critics to act like those they claim to have elevated themselves above.

OK. Done venting. It's not personal. It's something I've noticed somewhat frequently on the board. It comes across as a form/kind of arrogance.

You and others may even be blind to it, but it's rather obvious. And its not like fellow critics are going to point it out

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

This is the same feeling I get with his materials he posts on this as well. He already assumes nothing compares to Mormonism which is the only true way, and therefore all things will fail in comparison or be lesser than. That is his unmoveable axiom regardless of the evidence. That's why I find Tolkien to be an astonishing antidote to this myopic way of seeing things.

Don't take this wrong because it's not meant to be a slam against you or other critics. Here is what I've noticed over time in comments on this board. I'm not making this up. A believing person/poster is lessened in some way through saying something like what you just said. Myopic being just one of the descriptors used. There are many of them that have been used by various folks.

No MG. They aren’t talking about believers in general, or believing posters in general. They are referring to you and your behaviour specifically. Your avoidance reaction is both frequent and interesting.

[Philo Sofee]

MG - And almost regularly, along with that 'lessening' there comes the 'something else is better'. It's almost like critics can't stop doing the same thing they accuse LDS folks of doing Cheapening what someone values and believes and then claiming to have something better.

In this particular case, Tolkien.

I have not once said Tolkien has something better. He isn't interested in that angle. His approach is different, not better or worse. There is no value judgement from Tolkien about his moral ideas other than faithfulness to who someone is and does. So, your misunderstanding is understandable as you are taking an apologetic approach trying to find out what is true. Tolkien isn't, and I am not either by simply showing what Tolkien describes and says.

[Limnor]

Mercy and pity are part of how the world is built, but they never remove responsibility or turn goodness into simple obedience.

That’s why I’m hesitant to compare this to the LDS idea of the Light of Christ. In Tolkien, providence does not work like an inner compass that reliably points to the right choice, and it does not act as a system of divine supervision. It gives meaning in the background, but it does not instruct, control, or excuse actions. Moral clarity still has to be carried by imperfect people, making real choices, without guarantees.

I’m interested in this as well and want to better understand the LDS thinking of the “Light of Christ.” I think I see the distinction you’re drawing, but want to check my understanding. I think you are saying that In Tolkien, providence supplies meaning but not guidance—it doesn’t operate as an inner compass or a form of supervision, and it can’t be used to resolve moral ambiguity after the fact. This resonated with me. What I don’t understand is the LDS thought—it seems that responsibility is important in principle, but there is an internal moral light that reliably points toward the right choice? If that’s the case, the risk is smoothing the uncertainty Tolkien describes as one we have to carry.

[Limnor]

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.

I appreciate this metaphor or logic. It applies to sports talking heads, politicians and many other professions and trades.

I look at HVAC and Mechanical engineering. I see a lot of people wanting and getting cookies for absolute garbage designs and installations. But, their framework for success is different from those of the occupants and owners. I suspect that all ideologies, arts, science and trades are subject to this conflict. Anyways. Nicely said.

A large part of my work is understanding adversary perceptions—you can’t compete with, deter, or defeat someone unless you understand how they define success, or understanding their “Theory of Victory.”

The hard part is not confusing internal validation of understanding and bias with adversary viewpoints. Assumptions are tricky and must be carefully considered. I agree that applies in many places and situations.