curious about Mormonthink

[_Tarski]

Dr. Peterson and Cinepro will give you the pro-Mormon side in about as good a form as you can get.
The anti-Mormon side is a bit tougher to sort out. Here we have people like myself that will want you to teach your daughter to question religion in general. Then there are those Christians that want you to think that Mormonism is the work of Satan. The latter view is silly in my opinion.

Ultimately, I don't accept the metaphysical or supernatural teachings of Mormonism but I will not deny that my mostly Mormon extended family seem quite happy and I have little doubt that they would credit Mormonism.

Ideally, Mormonism will tend to shelter teens from drugs and sex and will teach respect for parents etc. Mormon culture prizes achievement and college education.

On the down side, for some Mormons, everything revolves around the church, metaphysically, socially and sometimes even in terms of addressing even the smallest matters such as what to wear--how long dresses should be, how much jewelry etc. However, rebels abound LOL.

Mormons are Christians but not trinitarians exactly. They believe God has a physical body and is a separate personage from Jesus (his son).

As an adult she will be expected to pay a full 10% of her income in tithing. This is surprisingly not a big deal for most and many would consider it worth it.

Mormonism is only superficially ecumenical--they claim to be unique (God's one true Church). They claim to posses authority that other churches do not posses.

If she marries an active member in a temple, she will be expected to wear special symbolic undergarments considered sacred. This sounds odd but will have little negative practical effect on anything in daily life.

Another surprise is the unusual content of temple ceremonies. I can't say much about that except that there is nothing evil going on there, it is just unfamiliar to most and resembles masonry. Basically, more promises to follow the rules and devote oneself to the cause etc.

Evangelical criticisms of Mormonism are often overblown and occasionally seriously misguided.

If after knowing all there is to know about it, she still wants to participate, then I would not attempt to interfere and I would not worry.

[_Inconceivable]

Interesting new example of "Mormonthink":

Apparently Satan is always trying extra hard... Apparently doubts are always to be mistrusted, and the "right" thing to do is always to push them aside, let them go, and pray for a stronger faith.

loves2sing,

When I was a Mormon, I was taught that Satan concentrated his evil on destroying the Mormon church. Ultimately, it was all about Satan vs. God's only true church (his saints and potential saints). He caused a particularly great amount of anxiety for me when I served as a full time missionary.

So, yes. The Mormon Satan has been working really extra hard on your daughter (and even on you) to doubt particularly what is termed faithful history.

You may notice that he is trying even harder to make you conclude that he actually exists. Although if he succeeds in this, it proves the Mormon church must be true, right? Oops.

Ironically, Satan is the church's best missionary. And for a son of God that was as bright as Jesus at one time, he now demonstrates the intelligence of a blowfly not to recognize the positive impact he's making - even if he's had 6,000 years to hone his craft of deception.

by the way,

Faithful History: A term used to describe what some of us believe to be the whitewashed and anesthetized version of historical accounts you will find carefully crafted in church lesson manuals, missionary discussions and spoken from the pulpit at a General Conference.

inc.

[_DrW]

I am, by the way, entirely serene about your reading an atheist's or agnostic's take on Mormonism. I myself am interested in reading what DrW has to say.

Perhaps, if you yourself incline toward theism, you'll find his position just as challenging to your worldview as he intends it to be to mine.

But if you're interested in the perspective of a believing, practicing, reasonably well-informed Latter-day Saint, I can help supply that.

Prof. Peterson,

Thank you for your very reasonable comments on my post. As you will see if you read the article, my immediate family, including six children, are all TBM.

While I clearly understand the TBM worldview, it becomes more and more difficult to understand how individuals can hold this view as science continues to illuminate and shrink gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works, and the secular (fact based) view of Mormon history becomes available on the internet.

Nonetheless, I hope Cynthia understands that I respect your worldview as you have shown respect for mine. It will be of great interest if Cynthia eventually lets us know what she decides, based on the evidence.

[_Daniel Peterson]

While I clearly understand the TBM worldview, it becomes more and more difficult to understand how individuals can hold this view as science continues to illuminate and shrink gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works, and the secular (fact based) view of Mormon history becomes available on the internet.

I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I disagree with you, on several levels.

And it's not because of any bias against science. Quite the contrary. When I arrived at the university -- I chose BYU over Caltech, which proved to have been a good step, given the way my interests developed -- I arrived as a mathematics major interested in cosmology. And, while I ultimately left science, I haven't stopped following scientific developments (I'm particularly interested in cosmology, still, and in geology). In fact, my doctoral dissertation ("Cosmogony and the Ten Separated Intellects in the Rahat al-‘Aql of Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani"), though it's about an eleventh-century Arab Neoplatonist, pretty obviously reflects my long-standing fascination with cosmological issues.

[_harmony]

It might be helpful to note that many very smart, very learned people are sincere believers in their religion. And many very smart, very learned people are believers in no religion.

And they all have their reasons, and they're all valid.

[_marg]

It might be helpful to note that many very smart, very learned people are sincere believers in their religion. And many very smart, very learned people are believers in no religion.

And they all have their reasons, and they're all valid.

I've read all religions start out as cults, so for all the members of cults currently living, what would make their reasons for being a member of and a cult follower...not valid? How do you differentiate between a valid reason to be a cult member versus a non valid reason?

[_DrW]

While I clearly understand the TBM worldview, it becomes more and more difficult to understand how individuals can hold this view as science continues to illuminate and shrink gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works, and the secular (fact based) view of Mormon history becomes available on the internet.

I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I disagree with you, on several levels.

And it's not because of any bias against science. Quite the contrary. When I arrived at the university -- I chose BYU over Caltech, which proved to have been a good step, given the way my interests developed -- I arrived as a mathematics major interested in cosmology. And, while I ultimately left science, I haven't stopped following scientific developments (I'm particularly interested in cosmology, still, and in geology). In fact, my doctoral dissertation ("Cosmogony and the Ten Separated Intellects in the Rahat al-‘Aql of Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani"), though it's about an eleventh-century Arab Neoplatonist, pretty obviously reflects my long-standing fascination with cosmological issues.

To say that I am surprised at your educational background would be a understatement. The only Islamic cosmology I have looked at is that in the Koran, which I find it of some interest given the LDS beliefs regarding a "layered" heaven. Like all "revealed" scripture however, it is of no use to science.

Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to describe in a paragraph or so your current best guess as to what humankind will eventually settle on as a "standard model" for cosmology?

Or perhaps I should better ask what you see as the best cosmology available today from any source, or set of sources. I ask this only because I have no idea how someone who has formally studied math and cosmology, and who is an active member of the Church, would answer such a question.

[_Tarski]

While I clearly understand the TBM worldview, it becomes more and more difficult to understand how individuals can hold this view as science continues to illuminate and shrink gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works, and the secular (fact based) view of Mormon history becomes available on the internet.

I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that I disagree with you, on several levels.

And it's not because of any bias agait science. Quite the contrary. When I arrived at the university -- I chose BYU over Caltech, which proved to have been a good step, given the way my interests developed -- I arrived as a mathematics major interested in cosmology. And, while I ultimately left science, I haven't stopped following scientific developments (I'm particularly interested in cosmology, still, and in geology). In fact, my doctoral dissertation ("Cosmogony and the Ten Separated Intellects in the Rahat al-‘Aql of Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani"), though it's about an eleventh-century Arab Neoplatonist, pretty obviously reflects my long-standing fascination with cosmological issues.

Interesting. I am a bit surprised that you never mentioned this aspect of your past (about math and cosmology) in any discusion with me (since those are my interests/profession). I do believe you of course--I'm just surprised it never came up (or maybe I forgot). I bet we could have tried to make the scientific cosmologies and the traditional or religious cosmologies the basis for a short but interesting discussion.
I am ready for a noncombative conversation.
Would I be able to get anything from the dissertation you cite or is too much background needed?

[_DrW]

And it's not because of any bias agait science. Quite the contrary. When I arrived at the university -- I chose BYU over Caltech, which proved to have been a good step, given the way my interests developed -- I arrived as a mathematics major interested in cosmology. And, while I ultimately left science, I haven't stopped following scientific developments (I'm particularly interested in cosmology, still, and in geology). In fact, my doctoral dissertation ("Cosmogony and the Ten Separated Intellects in the Rahat al-‘Aql of Hamid al-Din al-Kirmani"), though it's about an eleventh-century Arab Neoplatonist, pretty obviously reflects my long-standing fascination with cosmological issues.

Interesting. I am a bit surprised that you never mentioned this aspect of your past (about math and cosmology) in any discusion with me (since those are my interests/profession). I do believe you of course--I'm just surprised it never came up (or maybe I forgot). I bet we could have tried to make the scientific cosmologies and the traditional or religious cosmologies the basis for a short but interesting discussion.
I am ready for a noncombative conversation.
Would I be able to get anything from the dissertation you cite or is too much background needed?

Tarski,

From your signature line, I would guess that you are not TBM. And it would appear that you have had some discussions with Prof. Peterson in the past. As one who has casually monitored for a few months and just started posting, I am unfamiliar with your interaction with Prof. Peterson. However, since you have obviously thought about cosmology, I would be interested in your take as well.

With all of the recent activity in theoretical physics and astrophysics, it is hard for the non-professional to keep track of advances in cosmology. So I am interested to see how you and Prof. Peterson view things at this point. I'm especially interested in Prof. Peterson's views in light of the revealed Mormon "Kolob" cosmology.

[_Tarski]

I'm especially interested in Prof. Peterson's views in light of the revealed Mormon "Kolob" cosmology.

I imagine you will have to outline what you take to be "Kolob cosmology" and to what extent you expect Mormons are to take it literally. I expect he does not think Book of Abraham astrology/astronomy is to be taken as scientifically accurate. He will probably be more interested in the ways in which Book of Abraham cosmology aligns with ancient thought since this would supposedly tend to support Joseph Smith's claim to be able to "translate" ancient documents.
(Warning: I will not enter into a backwaters of the KEP and all that)


It is clear to me that Book of Abraham statements about time/durations and rates of revolutions and all that cannot rationalized in terms of something like general relativity without a great deal of ingenuity and perhaps brute force. But, Dan might tell you this is not necessarily the point of the Mormon scripture.

Dan?