God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

Let’s put Teresa’s fairly straightforward intent for crooked lines and straight writing to one side, and instead use an example MG 2.0 has used in the past to try and establish what definitions he’s giving crooked lines and straight writing. He has in the past explained that God allows pedophiles to abuse children because those perpetrators need the opportunity to exercise their agency and to also gain access to the path of repentance (I’m not kidding, that has been his position). So for that example, presumably the crooked line would be the abuse. And the straight writing would come for the perpetrator via the process of repentance.

Does anyone think I’ve misrepresented MG’s position on that situation and how he might apply his definition of crooked lines and straight writing?

The victim in this case was not exercising any agency and incurred crooked lines in their life through not fault of their own. Where is the straight writing for them?

I think that the orthodox Mormon answer to your last question is in the Celestial Kingdom - assuming that, at the end, they merit a place there.

A case of a future "reward" that nobody can verify exists, against an all-too-real present day cost and suffering. It's overwhelmingly likely, however, that the children being abused will never even hear about the putative reward before they die.

Well that’s a key thing to define - when does God write straight? If MG is proposing that God writes straight in the after life, using crooked line in this life, then it’s a pointless discussion - in that MG’s assertion is a baseless guess founded on his lifetime of brainwashing on one particular version of humanities theories on what happens next. The appropriate answer to MG saying God uses earthly crooked lines to write straight in the next life would be, simply, “Oh no he doesn’t.” End of discussion. Teresa (it seems to me) was positing that God can help us come to terms with adversity that we incur in our lives. MG seems to suggesting that God causes the adversity and then claims credit for a belated “reward”. That’s like someone stopping beating their wife and then expecting their wife to be grateful for the fact that they’ve stopped and to recognise that the beatings were all part of the plan for her to learn whatever lesson she’s learned.

[I Have Questions]

Everything you’ve said is fair. There is a tendency for people to assert their belief as “correct,” but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a flaw. Sometimes that’s just what it looks like when belief is personal rather than abstract. What matters more to me is not whether someone claims correctness, but where that claim is grounded.

I wouldn't say it's a flaw either. First and foremost, I'm trying to define what "crooked" might mean and what it means for somebody to assert the world is crooked, and really mean it, without just saying "we're all sinners" or "God's ways aren't are ways" such that the path (knowledge) is murky but the end result of actual salvation (ontology) is clear to the point of mere assumption. If the person asserting crookedness isn't full of existential dread, then it's likely the assertation is a flippant apologetic.

IHQ:

well, I'm only speculating that by crooked line we must at the very minimum take that to mean perceptual. It could be perceptual but not actual, or both, but if it's actual without being perceptual, which is possible, then nobody would ever suggest crookedness. Kant is straight-line all the way, he tells you to question the angel by the authority of the CI. A truly "crooked line" believer is highly unusual. "crooked line" as an apologetic is really straight line, and one of the most facile and common straight-line apologetics around, the flippant "God's way's aren't ours" kind of answer; my entire thing here with MG is questioning whether it's believable he's really offering a crooked line. It's like my right wing friend: you can point out all the drugs and cheating he did as a married Christian and say that looks awfully crooked path, but he'll immediately shrug it off and say, "we're all sinners". If his president is in the Epstein files, "wasn't everybody? we're all sinners, ha ha". If Bill Gates is in the Epstein files, "that dirty bastard! no wonder his wife left him!" Nothing causes him to pause for two seconds and question anything he's ever believed. It all makes (subjective) sense immediately. Kant might take a little longer to make sense of it, but he does make sense of it. So both my right-wing friend and Kant are straight-line thinkers, at the end of the day. So was Hegel, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Hegel was the absolute pinnacle of "making the crooked path straight" and Kierkegaard was the most extreme example of saying that isn't possible. crookedness is actually a real feature, not a facile excuse. But, even K can be used as a facile excuse and the way I was taught at BYU makes K more like the most sophisticated straight-line apologetics in the name of the crooked line around. "The Book of Mormon teaches Kierkegaard, therefore the Church is true" was the subtext of my teacher.

As you say, the polygamist whose wife ran off might question how God could do that to him. If he had that many wives, he must be really special, and for one to run off like that is a tremendous disrespect to the priesthood both he and God share. How could God let that happen? Who knows where that line of thinking will take him, if it's sincerely a faith crisis for him.

I think that what you are saying here is that "God can write straight with crooked lines" (MG's phraseology of Teresa's idea) in MG's world, could mean anything and everything so long as all roads lead to Rome - that Mormonism is true yada yada yada. MG has left his version of the phrase so ambiguous as to render it meaningless. Sure, <insert deity of your choice> can write straight from crooked lines, but how would we know? If MG is limiting the straight line apart to the afterlife, then it's a nonsense discussion as far as trying to hold a conversation with him about it. If we take Teresa's notion that from adversity can come some positive outcomes, and that those positive outcomes are down to God's influence, then we have to establish how to differentiate a positive outcome that's down to God's involvement rather than random chance, good fortune, for luck.

Now, as a general principle I would be prepared to accept at face value the proposal that holding a belief in God, regardless of whether that God actually exists or not, helps people deal with and overcome adversity in their life. It can lift spirits for believers. I can buy that. But we would need to rewrite the couplet to say "A belief in God writes straight from crooked lines".

[sock puppet]

Sure, <insert deity of your choice> can write straight from crooked lines, but how would we know? If MG is limiting the straight line apart to the afterlife, then it's a nonsense discussion as far as trying to hold a conversation with him about it. If we take Teresa's notion that from adversity can come some positive outcomes, and that those positive outcomes are down to God's influence, then we have to establish how to differentiate a positive outcome that's down to God's involvement rather than random chance, good fortune, for luck.

Now, as a general principle I would be prepared to accept at face value the proposal that holding a belief in God, regardless of whether that God actually exists or not, helps people deal with and overcome adversity in their life. It can lift spirits for believers. I can buy that. But we would need to rewrite the couplet to say "A belief in God writes straight from crooked lines".

Oh, therein lies the trick. Religion peddlers want you to have the doubt, not know. That way you'll bet against the unknown--i.e., pay over tithing to those very peddlers. It is those of us that want to know, such as through evidence and deduction, that those peddlers find 'unproductive' prospects. Pascal's wager was a twist on this.

[I Have Questions]

Sure, <insert deity of your choice> can write straight from crooked lines, but how would we know? If MG is limiting the straight line apart to the afterlife, then it's a nonsense discussion as far as trying to hold a conversation with him about it. If we take Teresa's notion that from adversity can come some positive outcomes, and that those positive outcomes are down to God's influence, then we have to establish how to differentiate a positive outcome that's down to God's involvement rather than random chance, good fortune, for luck.

Now, as a general principle I would be prepared to accept at face value the proposal that holding a belief in God, regardless of whether that God actually exists or not, helps people deal with and overcome adversity in their life. It can lift spirits for believers. I can buy that. But we would need to rewrite the couplet to say "A belief in God writes straight from crooked lines".

Oh, therein lies the trick. Religion peddlers want you to have the doubt, not know. That way you'll bet against the unknown--i.e., pay over tithing to those very peddlers. It is those of us that want to know, such as through evidence and deduction, that those peddlers find 'unproductive' prospects. Pascal's wager was a twist on this.

I actually think institutionalised religion is an unnecessary barrier artificially placed between an individual and God. It creates unhealthy power dynamics and self serving processes.

[Limnor]

Oh, therein lies the trick. Religion peddlers want you to have the doubt, not know. That way you'll bet against the unknown--i.e., pay over tithing to those very peddlers. It is those of us that want to know, such as through evidence and deduction, that those peddlers find 'unproductive' prospects. Pascal's wager was a twist on this.

I actually think institutionalised religion is an unnecessary barrier artificially placed between an individual and God. It creates unhealthy power dynamics and self serving processes.

Same. And I think Paul would agree.

[Gadianton]

He has in the past explained that God allows pedophiles to abuse children because those perpetrators need the opportunity to exercise their agency and to also gain access to the path of repentance (I’m not kidding, that has been his position). So for that example, presumably the crooked line would be the abuse. And the straight writing would come for the perpetrator via the process of repentance

I think he agrees that such abuse is crookedness. Well, who could disagree? Even the perp might agree, unless it were Joseph Smith. The straightening would be any of the usual responses to the problem of evil. For those who haven't seen it yet, it doesn't get any better than The tale of the twelve officers. For me, the way I'm thinking about it, most believers aren't bothered by the coexistence of God and evil in the world, and even expect terrible evil to happen, and for evil to get worse and worse until Jesus returns. They aren't going to bother too much with the tale of the twelve. They can't explain it but they know evil happens and accept it. When a believer like Teresa gets to the point of writing something like she did, whether it's the broader world or something personal, expectations are defied. It's one thing if it's someone else's kid, but now it's your kid. Or, it's the bishop, the very guy you rely on for your salvation tokens. You know that Satan is out there destroying people, but your conception of his evil didn't allow for the possibility it would show up with your bishop, or in some other way you didn't anticipate or take seriously. That's to me where the crookedness comes in for a believer vs. just run-of-the-mill evil.

[Gadianton]

I think that what you are saying here is that "God can write straight with crooked lines" (MG's phraseology of Teresa's idea) in MG's world, could mean anything and everything so long as all roads lead to Rome - that Mormonism is true yada yada yada

This is exactly, 100% what I'm saying. Say we can see Rome off in the distance and the valley bellow is littered with crooked roads. But the roads are covered in mist. We can talk about from our recollection where we think certain roads lead, but there's enough mist that MG can sit back and ask us to prove that any given road system doesn't lead to Rome, and insist we must believe they do until proven otherwise. Of course, you could make the case the roads lead to anywhere but he's plugging his ears with his fingers and repeating himself.

[Limnor]

For those who haven't seen it yet, it doesn't get any better than The tale of the twelve officers.

I had not seen this. I’m stumbling into Plantinga now and will report back.

[Limnor]

For those who haven't seen it yet, it doesn't get any better than The tale of the twelve officers.

I had not seen this. I’m stumbling into Plantinga now and will report back.

Plantinga and Kierkegaard would say the example of the 12 officers tries to ascribe human traits to God.

In Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, he argues that freedom (the ability to choose good or evil) is good, but if creatures are genuinely free, God cannot force them to always choose good. He continues with the argument that of possible, feasible alternate worlds containing free creatures, there will always include some moral evil, or at least the potential for evil.

Plantinga’s goal was not to explain why evil exists, or why specific evils occur, rather that the existence of evil logically compatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. His argument is only that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil without us knowing what those reasons are. Further, Plantinga limits us by asserting that we are not entitled to invent God’s reasons for particular evils, so his defense only succeeds because it shows logical consistency, not moral satisfaction.

So the less satisfactory response from Plantinga is essentially “I don’t know, but God could have a reason unknown to me” for non-intervention.

There is another view, however, as seen by Paul and Kierkegaard. That is an intervention through presence. I’ll call it “Christ in you,” and while it does not explain why God doesn’t intervene, it does show how God acts instead. Paul describes God’s response to suffering is not to prevent evil events from happening, but to act by indwelling the sufferer, transforming what suffering does to and within a person rather than controlling the circumstances that caused it.

This is why Jesus nor Paul never say “this happened for a reason,” but repeatedly say God is at work in weakness and through groaning. And it’s why Kierkegaard says that demanding explanations miss the point of faith. When Paul says “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” he is saying God’s “answer” to the question of suffering isn’t a reason, but more like coming to know Christ and sharing in His suffering.

A careful example is 9/11. God did not intervene to stop the planes. “Christ in you” doesn’t try to explain why that didn’t happen. Instead, it points to strangers running toward danger and firefighters climbing stairs they knew they might not come back down, and even in grieving together. Through a Pauline (and Kierkegaard) lens, the isn’t proof that the suffering was “for a reason,” nor that it was necessary. It’s an example of redemption arising within catastrophe. Not God causing evil for good, but good inside human response once evil had already occurred.

So it wouldn’t be accurate to say “9/11 happened so that people would come together.” But if we say “God was not absent from the aftermath, even though God did not prevent the event,” we’re much closer to Paul. God not controlling events, but in love made visible through people.

[Gadianton]

Plantinga and Kierkegaard would say the example of the 12 officers tries to ascribe human traits to God.

One or two of the officers take up the free will defense, where do you think they go wrong with it?

In Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense, he argues that freedom (the ability to choose good or evil) is good, but if creatures are genuinely free, God cannot force them to always choose good. He continues with the argument that of possible, feasible alternate worlds containing free creatures, there will always include some moral evil, or at least the potential for evil.

Plantinga’s goal was not to explain why evil exists, or why specific evils occur, rather that the existence of evil logically compatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. His argument is only that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil without us knowing what those reasons are. Further, Plantinga limits us by asserting that we are not entitled to invent God’s reasons for particular evils, so his defense only succeeds because it shows logical consistency, not moral satisfaction.

Right, it's a small yet big victory. Small, because it's possible that pigs fly. Big, because PoE was supposedly generally taken to make God a formal contradiction prior to, and so it allegedly shifted the debate to "moral satisfaction".

There is another view, however, as seen by Paul and Kierkegaard. That is an intervention through presence. I’ll call it “Christ in you,” and while it does not explain why God doesn’t intervene, it does show how God acts instead. Paul describes God’s response to suffering is not to prevent evil events from happening, but to act by indwelling the sufferer, transforming what suffering does to and within a person rather than controlling the circumstances that caused it.

This is why Jesus nor Paul never say “this happened for a reason,” but repeatedly say God is at work in weakness and through groaning. And it’s why Kierkegaard says that demanding explanations miss the point of faith. When Paul says “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” he is saying God’s “answer” to the question of suffering isn’t a reason, but more like coming to know Christ and sharing in His suffering.

It's true that you wouldn't need faith if God intervened and stopped evil all the time. However, the def. of God is what it is, regardless. I mean, why do you need faith? It's a solution looking for a problem.

So it wouldn’t be accurate to say “9/11 happened so that people would come together.” But if we say “God was not absent from the aftermath, even though God did not prevent the event,” we’re much closer to Paul. God not controlling events, but in love made visible through people.

I think that's put about as nicely as it can be.