God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

Question for Philo. (MG can thank me later) Bringing LOTR into the title of this thread, does Tolkien write straight with crooked lines?

Many on this thread have found a degree of respect for Tolkien. Does Tolkien really escape the trap of post-hoc redemption that apologists fall into?

Going by Philo's explanation as I understand it, plus a little help filling in the storyline from my buddy deepseek: Frodo failed at the last moment. He was unable to destroy the ring. But, as I understand it, the ring is impossible for any mortal to resist. And so the imperative (however it came to be) to destroy the ring was a "command" no mortal could fulfill. It almost sounds like "by the law, no flesh is justified". However, the virtues of Frodo and his friends in the quest kick off an accidental chain of events that end in Gollum destroying the ring by his own greed. That sounds a lot like "God" playing 5d chess to me.

If the rules of the game were simple and straightforward and true: be kind to others and so on, the ring presumably would never have been destroyed. In order to destroy the ring, the rules of the game need to be simple and straightforward, but one rule needs to be a lie. "Destroy the ring". Oh, it's not a lie in 5d! But that's because only God knows that by taking on the impossible task, that other virtues will come into play and trip a Rube-Goldberg chain of events that lead to the ring's destruction.

[Philo Sofee]

But even at that, the moral costs are part of the world of crooked lines that is the only one God has to work/deal with when He set up a plan by which freedom and choice reigned supreme.

Free choice may reign supreme in some other of God’s distant worlds, but even someone who believes that agency exists would be hard pressed to show how “freedom and free choice” reign supreme in this one. If it “reigned supreme” here, everyone would agree that it exists—and that there are no angels with flaming swords coercing obedience.

You keep injecting Mormon theology (in this case, free choice) that was not part of the OP, and you then cry foul when other people either recognize it or respond to it.

We then come back to some of the things we discussed back during the Sorites Paradox portion of the thread. What are the thresholds attached to the arbitrary judgements we make in regards to the things that happen in the world and at what threshold(s) do we call "Foul!" and either curse God or man.

The purpose of Sorite’s Paradox is to warn against framing questions using vague and imprecise language. It’s not the defense that you seem to think it is. The answer to Sorite’s Paradox is not to stand and yell “Ahah!” It’s to ask people to clarify their terms.

I think I know why MG wants to return to Sorites, he is using it strategically. Here’s why it appears attractive to his position: a) It converts moral judgment into epistemic humility. By framing everything as vague, thresholdless, arbitrary, any strong moral claim can be reframed as premature, presumptuous, insufficiently humble. And now we see that this protects his axiom. Human moral judgment cannot decisively evaluate divine involvement. That is never allowed to change for any reason whatsoever. It's why I find Tolkien to be the antidote entirely of this Sorites silliness.
MG wants to returns to Sorites because it preserves ambiguity and ambiguity in turn preserves authority and authority therefore resists moral indictment, not because Sorites demands it but because Sorites permits it. Sorites allows discussion to continue without resolution. That’s crucial. It lets MG say “I’m not denying your concern.” He can also insist “I’m just saying it’s complicated.” In fact, his main line defense will always become “Who can really say where the line is?” While this feels open-minded he will always need this so he can continue his defense by saying things are too vague or complicated to judge. This way he can keep anyone from ever saying that something was wrong. If you’re always told you need a perfect definition before you can criticize something, then no one is ever held responsible, and nothing is allowed to count as clearly bad. It's pre-loaded dice.

[malkie]

Question for Philo. (MG can thank me later) Bringing LOTR into the title of this thread, does Tolkien write straight with crooked lines?

Many on this thread have found a degree of respect for Tolkien. Does Tolkien really escape the trap of post-hoc redemption that apologists fall into?

Going by Philo's explanation as I understand it, plus a little help filling in the storyline from my buddy deepseek: Frodo failed at the last moment. He was unable to destroy the ring. But, as I understand it, the ring is impossible for any mortal to resist. And so the imperative (however it came to be) to destroy the ring was a "command" no mortal could fulfill. It almost sounds like "by the law, no flesh is justified". However, the virtues of Frodo and his friends in the quest kick off an accidental chain of events that end in Gollum destroying the ring by his own greed. That sounds a lot like "God" playing 5d chess to me.

If the rules of the game were simple and straightforward and true: be kind to others and so on, the ring presumably would never have been destroyed. In order to destroy the ring, the rules of the game need to be simple and straightforward, but one rule needs to be a lie. "Destroy the ring". Oh, it's not a lie in 5d! But that's because only God knows that by taking on the impossible task, that other virtues will come into play and trip a Rube-Goldberg chain of events that lead to the ring's destruction.

Is Frodo (or Frodo's quest) saved by grace, after all he (Frodo) can do? That is, although all of Frodo's efforts were doomed (pun?) from the start, if he had not done all that he could then the circumstances would not have arisen though which Gollum was able to accomplish the goal of quest. Has "god" caused Gollum to become Frodo's unlikely saviour?

[Philo Sofee]

Question for Philo. (MG can thank me later) Bringing LOTR into the title of this thread, does Tolkien write straight with crooked lines?

Many on this thread have found a degree of respect for Tolkien. Does Tolkien really escape the trap of post-hoc redemption that apologists fall into?

Going by Philo's explanation as I understand it, plus a little help filling in the storyline from my buddy deepseek: Frodo failed at the last moment. He was unable to destroy the ring. But, as I understand it, the ring is impossible for any mortal to resist. And so the imperative (however it came to be) to destroy the ring was a "command" no mortal could fulfill. It almost sounds like "by the law, no flesh is justified". However, the virtues of Frodo and his friends in the quest kick off an accidental chain of events that end in Gollum destroying the ring by his own greed. That sounds a lot like "God" playing 5d chess to me.

If the rules of the game were simple and straightforward and true: be kind to others and so on, the ring presumably would never have been destroyed. In order to destroy the ring, the rules of the game need to be simple and straightforward, but one rule needs to be a lie. "Destroy the ring". Oh, it's not a lie in 5d! But that's because only God knows that by taking on the impossible task, that other virtues will come into play and trip a Rube-Goldberg chain of events that lead to the ring's destruction.

Frodo wasn’t commanded to destroy the Ring; he freely chose to bear it as far as he could, and Tolkien is careful to judge him by faithfulness, not by outcome. There wasn't a law given with a design failure of a task. It was a burden freely accepted, a journey without guarantees, and it is a task beyond finite strength without being a trick. In the Letters Tolkien said Frodo was morally complete and forgiven since his failure does not negate his faithfulness. He got the ring to Mount Doom, and from his earlier gift of mercy letting Gollum live, that was how the ring was destroyed. No one knew how it would go, or that it even would succeed. There was no lying command of destroy the ring. Even the company of 9 was volunteers, not commandments for them. And they could leave the Fellowship at any time they wanted. So with the false premise, I don't think your argument holds. There is no 5D chess being played here, since there was no plan requiring failure so that a higher order could intervene. No higher order intervened in any manner. Gollum did. At least that is how the Tolkien set up was crafted.

[MG 2.0]

But even at that, the moral costs are part of the world of crooked lines that is the only one God has to work/deal with when He set up a plan by which freedom and choice reigned supreme.

Free choice may reign supreme in some other of God’s distant worlds, but even someone who believes that agency exists would be hard pressed to show how “freedom and free choice” reign supreme in this one. If it “reigned supreme” here, everyone would agree that it exists—and that there are no angels with flaming swords coercing obedience.

OK, to be more precise, freedom and choice” are structurally central to God’s plan (in LDS terms) rather than descriptively triumphant in every mortal circumstance. I would acknowledge that coercion, luck, and systemic constraints also enter into the picture. Those are the "moving parts" I have referred to earlier.

We then come back to some of the things we discussed back during the Sorites Paradox portion of the thread. What are the thresholds attached to the arbitrary judgements we make in regards to the things that happen in the world and at what threshold(s) do we call "Foul!" and either curse God or man.

The purpose of Sorite’s Paradox is to warn against framing questions using vague and imprecise language. It’s not the defense that you seem to think it is. The answer to Sorite’s Paradox is not to stand and yell “Ahah!” It’s to ask people to clarify their terms.

My point in invoking Sorites was not ‘you can never judge,’ but to be wary of pretending there is a razor-sharp, obvious cutoff where divine action flips from acceptable to damnable. We as humans are susceptible to creating thresholds that may or may not stand up against reality.

Are we ever fully able to determine what reality is when looking at it from all directions?

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

Question for Philo. (MG can thank me later) Bringing LOTR into the title of this thread, does Tolkien write straight with crooked lines?

Many on this thread have found a degree of respect for Tolkien. Does Tolkien really escape the trap of post-hoc redemption that apologists fall into?

Going by Philo's explanation as I understand it, plus a little help filling in the storyline from my buddy deepseek: Frodo failed at the last moment. He was unable to destroy the ring. But, as I understand it, the ring is impossible for any mortal to resist. And so the imperative (however it came to be) to destroy the ring was a "command" no mortal could fulfill. It almost sounds like "by the law, no flesh is justified". However, the virtues of Frodo and his friends in the quest kick off an accidental chain of events that end in Gollum destroying the ring by his own greed. That sounds a lot like "God" playing 5d chess to me.

If the rules of the game were simple and straightforward and true: be kind to others and so on, the ring presumably would never have been destroyed. In order to destroy the ring, the rules of the game need to be simple and straightforward, but one rule needs to be a lie. "Destroy the ring". Oh, it's not a lie in 5d! But that's because only God knows that by taking on the impossible task, that other virtues will come into play and trip a Rube-Goldberg chain of events that lead to the ring's destruction.

Is Frodo (or Frodo's quest) saved by grace, after all he (Frodo) can do? That is, although all of Frodo's efforts were doomed (pun?) from the start, if he had not done all that he could then the circumstances would not have arisen though which Gollum was able to accomplish the goal of quest. Has "god" caused Gollum to become Frodo's unlikely saviour?

Interesting, but no, since Tolkien never said any of that. God caused Gollum to save Frodo is never an explanation anywhere in anything Tolkien wrote published or unpublished. He also never wrote that Frodo's failure was planned or that he was given an impossible command. There was no command, Frodo volunteered to take the ring to Mount Doom, there is nothing or no one who commanded he destroy it also. There is no guarantee that faithfulness will succeed, as Elrond noted in the council, no one could see what might happen. With that even failure might actually matter, it's still open. Grace may arrive, they just didn't know if it would, nor did they say it would to anyone, in fact, quite the opposite. We don't know what will happen. There was no God saving short cut anywhere in the entire adventure.

[Philo Sofee]

...I’m not suggesting Tolkien solved the problem of evil or made the world fit his beliefs. What interests me is almost the opposite: he refuses to let belief dissolve tragedy, failure, or moral cost. If he were simply rationalizing, we’d expect certainty, resolution, and vindication. Instead we get unfinished wounds, irreversible loss, and goodness that often fails. That feels less like wish-fulfillment and more like moral discipline.

In other words, the opposite of the triteness imposed with the 'crooked made straight' OP argument.

MG has to keep things vague and non specific because the details pin him down and refutes his axiom. He won't let that happen. It is why Tolkien is also such a wrench in his gears. Tolkien doesn't care about testimony and truthfulness of a claim, or burning bosoms, he cares about living a moral life in faithfulness no matter what the cost and consequences. At least that is how I understand it.

[Philo Sofee]

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

It's been an adventure to be sure. I still have so much I want to learn from Tolkien, and that takes time. I never before realized just how good and solid fiction could be for us, but Tolkien has convinced me.

[malkie]

Is Frodo (or Frodo's quest) saved by grace, after all he (Frodo) can do? That is, although all of Frodo's efforts were doomed (pun?) from the start, if he had not done all that he could then the circumstances would not have arisen though which Gollum was able to accomplish the goal of quest. Has "god" caused Gollum to become Frodo's unlikely saviour?

Interesting, but no, since Tolkien never said any of that. God caused Gollum to save Frodo is never an explanation anywhere in anything Tolkien wrote published or unpublished. He also never wrote that Frodo's failure was planned or that he was given an impossible command. There was no command, Frodo volunteered to take the ring to Mount Doom, there is nothing or no one who commanded he destroy it also. There is no guarantee that faithfulness will succeed, as Elrond noted in the council, no one could see what might happen. With that even failure might actually matter, it's still open. Grace may arrive, they just didn't know if it would, nor did they say it would to anyone, in fact, quite the opposite. We don't know what will happen. There was no God saving short cut anywhere in the entire adventure.

One further question, if you'll indulge me, or treat it as rhetorical if you prefer:

Is there a way in which I could possibly have got it more wrong than I did?

[Limnor]

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.

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 think it is an honest reading as well, as it gives a serious response to how it was written, not just to what it claims. Once I saw all that it became almost impossible to read it any other way. And I wanted to share that with people who might appreciate that view.