curious about Mormonthink

[_DrW]

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?

While I would be happy to outline Kolob cosmology, such an outline should not be necessary because the Mormon beliefs regarding Kolob are set forth clearly in scripture. I have written a few pieces for other websites concerning Kolob's problems with relativity and physics in general.

However, I would much prefer to hear what Prof. Peterson has to say about cosmology, especially from a personal point of view, since he has worked in this area.

I'm more interested in learning what educated Mormons think nowadays on this subject than in debating it.

[_Tarski]

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?

While I would be happy to outline Kolob cosmology, such an outline should not be necessary because the Mormon beliefs regarding Kolob are set forth clearly in scripture. I have written a few pieces for other websites concerning Kolob's problems with relativity and physics in general.

However, I would much prefer to hear what Prof. Peterson has to say about cosmology, especially from a personal point of view, since he has worked in this area.

I'm more interested in learning what educated Mormons think nowadays on this subject than in debating it.

http://www.farmsresearch.com/publicatio ... chapid=161
.
.
.
.
..
.
.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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'm pretty sure I mentioned it to you once. I seem to recall even mentioning that I had a huge poster of Albert Einstein on the wall of my dorm room during my freshman year.

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.

I don't know that I have anything particularly controversial to say on current cosmological theory, which I simply find interesting. I have no quarrels with what scientists are discussing on these subjects, and no particular ax to grind.

Moreover, I'm actually (seriously) trying to wean myself from message board discussions right now, I'm preparing final exams, I'm reading senior theses, and I'm off for an extended visit to the Middle East in three weeks. It's an awkward time for any new commitments to internet discussion.

Would I be able to get anything from the dissertation you cite or is too much background needed?

You might find it interesting. But maybe not. It touches only slightly on Ptolemaic models of the universe, but focuses mostly on the Neoplatonic theory of emanation and how that related to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in al-Kirmani, al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina.

[_Calculus Crusader]

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?

Professor,

You would love this book by one of the Skousens I read back when I still believed in Mormonism. It talked about the spiritual earth hurtling through space from the presence of Kolob to its current position, not being bound by the laws of physics. It wouldn't even qualify as the basis for a B scifi movie, let alone legitimate astrophysics.

[_Calculus Crusader]

A newbie here... wanting to learn about LDS community. My 15-year-old daughter has joined the church.

I'd be interested to hear pros & cons about "Mormonthink," to quote Dr. Shades - which I'm thinking means the Mormon paradigm, or world view.

Links to previous postings (or topics) would be appreciated, too, if you think they'd help me learn about this.

Thanks,
Cynthia

Hello Cynthia. I recommend James David's A Close Look at Mormonism as a good start. Mormons are generally good people, but Joseph Smith was a transparent charlatan and Mormonism is a patent fraud.

[_loves2sing]

Cynthia,

If you are interested in MormonThink, you should probably not depend only on literature from the Mormon Church.

You might want to look at more objective literature as well. Because Mormonism is so controversial (and for good reason), there is plenty of literature out there. I hope that you will look at both sides. As you do, please consider the motivations behind the authors in all cases.

Yes, DrW, that's what I'm doing. I'm looking at many different points of view.

Many thanks for the link to the article about Magical Thinking. Interesting.

Yes, unquestioning faith can be dangerous. And any group which tries to keep its members from thinking for themselves is suspect.

But I don't think that all of the truth is to be found in what we humans have learned through scientific inquiry, either. Our minds are limited.

Here's an analogy: When my children were small, I did many things for their safety that they could not understand, like putting plugs in electrical outlets, strapping them into carseats, etc. Their minds were simply not yet capable of understanding the world as I do; they couldn't grasp the concepts, the dangers, that are part of the practical truth about the world. They didn't have the ability to comprehend these things.

I believe that my adult mind is similarly limited, that there are truths which I cannot grasp with my intellect... For me, that's where faith comes in.

I believe that, just as I was able to comprehend much more than my young children, there is that which I call God which can grasp ever-so-much more than I can.

And, if I am going to learn more about the world, beyond what my intellect knows, if I am going to learn more about God, more about what seem to be higher truths about reality, I must approach these things with more of myself than just my limited intellect.

So I believe there is definitely an appropriate role for faith, and that truth can be comprehended in more than one way. There are a variety of ways of knowing.

Learning about Mormonism challenges me to involve more of myself than just my mind - not to close down my mind, not at all, it's a useful tool - but not to limit myself only to that way of "knowing."

[_ludwigm]

Subtitle : Kolobian astronomy

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

According to the first four rules of arithmetic (allegedly valid in the four standard works), our one year is equal of 86.4 second for the lord (Lord? LORD?).
This means he (He? HE? hehehe) changes his (...) mind frequently.

In 1890, the lord (...) has withdrawn his commandment about polygamy.
In fact, it wasn't really a cancellation. With the cautious words of Wilford Woodruff "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice" . But I don't want to digress.

Nobody knows the real date of D&C 132.
Was it 1830, according to the heading of that chapter, was it 1942 when Joseph Smith presented it, or was 1854 when it appeared in writing the first time. All the same.

The validity time was one and a half hour (or only 3/4), according to the reckoning of the Lord’s time.

Anyway, it seems to has been precipitous a little, extrapolated to the consequences of the commandments, particularly to this one.

[_DrW]

Tarski,

From Prof. Peterson's profile, it appears that he is fairly active on this site. I also see his name over at MADB. Looks as if he might not feel comfortable talking about cosmology, however.

I find this interesting since he brought up the issue with me. As you indicated earlier, he had not mentioned his interest in cosmology to you before.

From your comments, it would seem that you understand the secular cosmology models, and that you know a lot about the Mormon Church.

What is your story? What is your interest in reading and posting here?

I know that this is really off-topic for this thread. Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss this and let folks on this one get back to helping Cynthia.

What do you think?

[_Tarski]

What is your story? What is your interest in reading and posting here?

I know that this is really off-topic for this thread. Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss this and let folks on this one get back to helping Cynthia.

What do you think?

My interest in posting here is mainly entertainment or to practice making myself clear and to cause religious people, particularly Mormons, to think more deeply and skeptically about their religion.
At this point, I also view these guys as friends, so it is also social.

I have argued about cosmology and physics a little bit with Dan Peterson and about supposed connections of quantum field theory and the Light of Christ with the infamous character Kerry Shirts. Dan won't get into it much.

My story is that I am a professor of mathematics with interests in areas related to physics.
I am 52 years old, on my second marriage, the first wife was LDS.
I am a life long member (still on the books) and went on a mission to Japan.
I am a skeptical of religious claims but try to not be dogmatic. If pressed I suppose would say I am agnostic/atheist but with very occasional leanings toward the mystical and some sympathy for the mathematical neoplatonism of Penrose.

I studied some of the continental philosophers in my younger days (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau Ponty etc) and in high school was quite obsessed with consciousness and was more or less a mind body dualist at the time. This also lead to experiments with psychedelics.
Later in life I was convinced of the value and strength of the arguments of Daniel Dennett but not before taking in some of what R. Rorty has put out (Philosophy and the Mirror or Nature).

On the side, I play electric guitar fairly seriously.


Fo various reasons having to do with family and so on, I maintain anonymity so I will not put down many specific details here.

My main and longest lasting concerns with the doctrines of Mormonism center around thinking carefully about the implications of the claim that God has a mammal body (or the form of a specific primate) therefore paradoxically displaying all the signs of an evolutionary history (and thus the result of a highly contingent and long sequence of biohistorical accidents) and overt morphological indicators of functions appropriate to a finite and limited creature. I also have problems with the notion of a spirit body which I believe to be nearly incoherent in its claimed context.

See my ancient threads at MAD (you many need to cut and past them into the address box)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... hl=turtles

and

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =0&start=0

and

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... &hl=photon

[_Daniel Peterson]

[quote="DrW"]From Prof. Peterson's profile, it appears that he is fairly active on this site. I also see his name over at MADB. Looks as if he might not feel comfortable talking about cosmology, however.

I find this interesting since he brought up the issue with me. As you indicated earlier, he had not mentioned his interest in cosmology to you before./quote]
I'm seriously trying to back off from message boards in general, and this one very much in particular. They're a serious drain on my time.

As for contemporary cosmological theory, I simply don't have anything unique to say about the subject. I have no clear investment in inflationary models or the Big Crunch or the Big Freeze or anything of that sort. I read on the subject with interest, but I'm neither qualified to contribute to the debate nor convinced that I have a horse in the race.