God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Shulem]

That God loves us/humanity and wants the best possible outcome...

That is not what Brigham Young and his successors taught about what was best for black people!

Young stepped all over black people and treated them like crap. Why? Because he had the spirit of Satan in his heart.

The evils of Mormonism....

[Shulem]

Is it possible that unexpected/unwanted/unacceptable outcomes can still align with a larger purpose?

The revelatory explanations published by Joseph Smith for Facsimile No. 3 have no redeeming value and serve no purpose other than to prove Joseph Smith was faking it.

It seems that God can write straight with crooked lines.

He didn't write Facsimile No. 3! Those lines are lies.

[MG 2.0]

I think the surface has been scratched and the Hoppy Taw advanced a couple or three times. I'd like to see folks dig a bit deeper and make some more jumps.

Simply repeating rehashes of arguments bashing Mormonism doesn't do justice to the topic. Jersey Girl was spot on in saying/suggesting that it's much bigger than any one religion when we suggest that God can write straight with crooked lines.

My last post was trying to lead us in that direction.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

Simply repeating rehashes of arguments bashing Mormonism doesn't do justice to the topic. Jersey Girl was spot on in saying/suggesting that it's much bigger than any one religion when we suggest that God can write straight with crooked lines.

Look at you trying to be so complimentary. She is not fool enough to fall for your tricks.

That girl is too smart.

[Res Ipsa]

Answer 1:

Of course, a hypothetical creator god can write straight straight with crooked letters. Even I, a real non-creator, non-God can do that. In fact, I’m doing it right now. Look at all those crooked lines I’m individually typing, one by one. See how they form such nice straight sentences? Straight lines with crooked lines. Certainly I can imagine a god that can do something I can do.

Answer 2:

Ultimately, only MG 2.0 can answer this question. Why? Because it’s his imagined Creator God. He is the creator of his Creator God. It has whatever powers he imagines it has. If he chooses, it can make straight lines out of crooked lines or crooked lines out of straight lines. It can be a chimera, being whatever MG 2.0 wants it to be at any point in space and time. It can be both powerful and weak, never changing and ever changing, depending on how MG 2.0 imagines it to be, both right now and 2000 years ago.

And, as MG 2.0 gets to define when lines are straight and when they are crooked, a false answer to a prayer can be a straight line. And so can abused children. And beheaded uncles. Indeed, none of here has yet been able to find an example of crooked lines that MG 2.0 cannot reimagine as straight writing.

If one is willing to be a moral relativist, a situational ethicist, and an unabashed post-modernist, then one can always invent a story in which crooked letters become straight writing. Only MG 2.0 can decide whether his imagined creator God writes straight with crooked lines.

So, can he, MG 2.0. Does he?

Or will you dismiss these answers with a child’s game metaphor?

[Limnor]

I’d like to bear my testimony.

I know ambiguity is true. I know it with every fiber of my being. I know that when a metaphor is broad enough, it can comfort everyone by indicating that error and injustice are part of the plan, unless some things really are just human mistakes, in which case I am grateful that we don’t have to clarify which is which.

I’m grateful that when people ask for specificity, we can zoom out, toss the Hoppy Taw, speak hypothetically through games fit for elementary age children, and remind ourselves that life is messy. I know this ambiguity protects us from the burden of saying what we actually mean or what would count against it.

I testify that clarity is overrated, that making scriptural reference from the LDS canon while simultaneously speaking in regard to humanity as a whole, not one particular religious faith tradition, is unlikely to be noticed, and that my testimony is safest when I can sit off to the side and gently nudge the players toward an unnamed solution that can’t be examined too closely.

I say these things humbly, and then I will back out again.

[Shulem]

And beheaded uncles.

[Limnor]

And beheaded uncles.

Ditto lol

[MG 2.0]

You will notice that I am more interested, at least at this point, in the discussion among other board members. This is my intent. I said so at the beginning. Otherwise, it becomes another "all about MG" thread. There are too many of those already.

I'm enjoying the recent posts. Limnor, I think your "testimony' may have a place in this discussion worth considering and thinking about. Res Ipsa, I'd like to sort of keep out of it for now and let others have their say without me throwing a monkey wrench/grenade into the discussion. I've probably come close to doing so already.

Trying to stay away from that for now.

Others might want to comment on the questions you are throwing out there in my name.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

An associated question:

Can/could a perfect being produce perfect results using imperfect instruments?

Fits in with everything else I've said thusfar.

Remember, this is all MUCH larger than Mormonism.

Regards,
MG