God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

If you believe in God, I kind of think you have to be open to crooked lines, that your world of commitments might not be the true world, and God might shake things up with revelations you aren't ready for.

I’m not sure we ever settled on a definition, and I think we’ve ranged from crookedness as being the same as evil to just “difficulty.”

I’m currently sitting somewhere near “crookedness is the dissonance that comes from a promise of moral clarity that can only be satisfied by suspension of conscience to remain clear.” I can see how uncomfortable revelation could feel crooked when first introduced, but caution should be applied when crookedness becomes routine instead of rare, or when the lack of resolution becomes the expected condition. So it’s not so much that the line bends or seems crooked, it’s whether that crookedness becomes the norm.

I think you’re right that the gospel initially looked crooked to those living under the Law, but I’m not sure the New Testament leaves that crookedness permanent—Paul in particular spends a lot of time making sense of it rather than continuing the confusion.

Gents, if I may proffer a starting point for agreeing what the phrase “God writes straight with crooked lines” means…

There is an old saying, which some attribute to St. Teresa of Avila, which says that God writes straight with crooked lines. It means that though our human life often seems to be so full of weaknesses and mistakes, conflicts and confusions, God can achieve His purpose.

I’m not suggesting that this is what MG means by the term - I doubt you will ever get to the bottom of that. So perhaps you’re better off setting the terms of reference yourselves.

[Marcus]

I don't think polygamy is fundamentally evil.

Yes it is. It normalizes the idea of one gender being allowed to collect, control and use groups of another gender. Just like slavery normalizes the idea of one race being allowed to collect, control and use groups of another race.

Equality in relationships is not found in polygamy any more than it's found in slavery.

[Marcus]

I’m not sure we ever settled on a definition, and I think we’ve ranged from crookedness as being the same as evil to just “difficulty.”

I’m currently sitting somewhere near “crookedness is the dissonance that comes from a promise of moral clarity that can only be satisfied by suspension of conscience to remain clear.” I can see how uncomfortable revelation could feel crooked when first introduced, but caution should be applied when crookedness becomes routine instead of rare, or when the lack of resolution becomes the expected condition. So it’s not so much that the line bends or seems crooked, it’s whether that crookedness becomes the norm.

I think you’re right that the gospel initially looked crooked to those living under the Law, but I’m not sure the New Testament leaves that crookedness permanent—Paul in particular spends a lot of time making sense of it rather than continuing the confusion.

Gents, if I may proffer a starting point for agreeing what the phrase “God writes straight with crooked lines” means…

There is an old saying, which some attribute to St. Teresa of Avila, which says that God writes straight with crooked lines. It means that though our human life often seems to be so full of weaknesses and mistakes, conflicts and confusions, God can achieve His purpose.

I’m not suggesting that this is what MG means by the term - I doubt you will ever get to the bottom of that. So perhaps you’re better off setting the terms of reference yourselves.

Ladies and other Gents of the thread, I'm sure this proffer is meant for us to read and consider as well!

[I Have Questions]

Oops! As I was responding directly to Gad and Limnor I thought I was on safe ground

[Marcus]

Oops! As I was responding directly to Gad and Limnor I thought I was on safe ground

No problem! I thought it was an interesting suggestion that is far closer to anything I've heard since leaving the LDS church than the AI (and frequently conflicting) literalness mg has been posting.

[I Have Questions]

Oops! As I was responding directly to Gad and Limnor I thought I was on safe ground

No problem! I thought it was an interesting suggestion that is far closer to anything I've heard since leaving the LDS church than the AI (and frequently conflicting) literalness mg has been posting.

Yes, it's a good paragraph. But unclear about what God is trying to achieve, specifically.

[Marcus]

No problem! I thought it was an interesting suggestion that is far closer to anything I've heard since leaving the LDS church than the AI (and frequently conflicting) literalness mg has been posting.

Yes, it's a good paragraph. But unclear about what God is trying to achieve, specifically.

Yes, exactly. In my experience, most (non-Mormon) people who are religious are willing to leave it at that, they express belief but don't feel the need to pin down a literal human-like behavior they can ascribe to a supernatural being. They just don't. As an example, Mormons are very specific about the attributes of heaven--three kingdoms, what covenants are required to enter where, which spouse and family you will live with based on who is sealed to whom and when, who can reproduce with whom (or with how many 'whom's if you're male), who can visit whom across which kingdoms (you can visit down but not up), what activities are allowed, what body parts will be resurrected, etc. If I asked my catholic relatives to explain what heaven will be like with that level of detail, I imagine their response would be a confused 'why do you ask?'

[Limnor]

Yes, it's a good paragraph. But unclear about what God is trying to achieve, specifically.

Yes, exactly. In my experience, most (non-Mormon) people who are religious are willing to leave it at that, they express belief but don't feel the need to pin down a literal human-like behavior they can ascribe to a supernatural being. They just don't. As an example, Mormons are very specific about the attributes of heaven--three kingdoms, what covenants are required to enter where, which spouse and family you will live with based on who is sealed to whom and when, who can reproduce with whom (or with how many 'whom's if you're male), who can visit whom across which kingdoms (you can visit down but not up), what activities are allowed, what body parts will be resurrected, etc. If I asked my catholic relatives to explain what heaven will be like with that level of detail, I imagine their response would be a confused 'why do you ask?'

That makes sense to me, I never thought about it from the Mormon perspective—straight lines equals where you end up if I’m understanding you correctly.

The Catholic and extended creedal Christian approach to the straight line is probably closer to explaining how humans live without knowing exactly what the end state is. Maybe what is seen at the end of Ecclesiastes, as an example.

I’ve always thought of the end state as ultimately humans being a dwelling place for God, though what that looks like isn’t clear to me—I think of it as being murky now but it will be clear one day.

[Gadianton]

There is an old saying, which some attribute to St. Teresa of Avila,

Nice find. It never even occurred to me to look it up as it sounds so odd. I figured MG made it up or heard it in church. Maybe he did hear it somewhere, and wasn't concealing the source. It does sort of fit with his first few posts on the thread as I remember them.

Yes it is. It normalizes the idea of one gender being allowed to collect, control and use groups of another gender. Just like slavery normalizes the idea of one race being allowed to collect, control and use groups of another race.

Equality in relationships is not found in polygamy any more than it's found in slavery.

Yeah, I may be on my own here --marriage between two people had as much to do with property as anything else until the last couple hundred years. It's not fundamentally good, per enlightenment and civil rights values. I'm both a libertarian and a cultural relativist, and so in one case, if polygamy or polyandry is practiced on an island by a tribe that has persisted for thousands of years with its customs, then I'm not judging. I won't be sending conquistadors and missionaries to make them stop. Modern people can't use the Old Testament or cultures elsewhere to justify it for themselves because the meaning of the institution will never translate. As a libertarian, if people in the modern world want to have a 3-some, or take that to the next level of a life-long commitment, then good luck to them. As long as its consensual, I don't care if it's productive or anything else; if that's their self-determined way forward, it should be respected. I may not want to know the details, but I don't deny them the right.

The likelihood of polygamy being practiced in a consensual way is very low, especially given that it's pretty much exclusively tied to fundamentalist religion that seeks out underage girls as the greatest prize. Like Joseph Smith did. Like Warren Jeffs did. Like God the Father did with Mary who was about 14 when she had Jesus. But, imagining it without that, and without stealing wives from others, or heavy-handed appointment against wills, the conflict of criteria is going to be between "equality" and "self-determination". And so, even a certain degree of religious fundamentalism I'm unfortunately going to need to permit. If a relationship isn't equal, perhaps the man makes most of the decisions, but there are matriarchal cultures also so it could go that way too; if both parties believe this is the way that it's supposed to be, then it would be more wrong to deny their self-determination to live the way they wish to.

[Shulem]

There is an old saying, which some attribute to St. Teresa of Avila,

Nice find. It never even occurred to me to look it up as it sounds so odd. I figured MG made it up or heard it in church. Maybe he did hear it somewhere, and wasn't concealing the source. It does sort of fit with his first few posts on the thread as I remember them.

Gad? WTF? Back on page 3 of this thread:

What do you mean by “God can write straight with crooked lines” and how has it been established as a “truth”?

Google it and see how it was coined by Teresa of Ávila, a nun who lived in the 1500's. It's a religious adage with a meaning meant to inspire by showing how God can overcome all things in spite of human faults. A quick search will prove it's never been cited in General Conference or used by the Mormons who wouldn't dare assign God with anything less than perfect lines. The word "crooked" in scripture usually has negative connotations. Mormonism equates God with perfection in everything he does and anything crooked would make it seem less so.

I don't find fault with the adage but it's not something the Mormons have adopted in their teachings with the exception of MG who wants to play mind games with members of the board.