Archive Page 2

Sheldon Cooper and the Immortality and Eternal Life of Man

I was recently watching a re-run of the television show ‘Big Bang Theory’.  In this episode, Sheldon Cooper (the genius theoretical physicist who likely has something like Asperger Syndrome), regrets that he will likely die before sheldonscientists figure out how to transfer his consciousness into a robot so that he can live forever.

Sheldon, among other things, is something of an atheist who frequently ridicules his mother’s devout Christian faith.  And while he has legitimate questions about some aspects of her fundamentalist (likely Southern Baptist) beliefs, he seems oblivious to his own version of faith in man’s science.

His hope is not significantly different from the Christian hope of immortality and eternal life.  He acknowledges that there is something real yet mysterious about our conscious self.  He assumes that this consciousness is eternal in its ‘ nature.  And he hopes that if this consciousness can be transferred to a permanent body, then immortality will be his to enjoy.

This hope is not unlike the Christian hope in a resurrection, where our spirits can be transferred to a permanent body.  And while Sheldon has faith that someday mankind will figure out how to pull this feat off, his mother, and Christians everywhere, has faith that there already is something of a master scientist who already has it figured out.

Taylor Petrey and the Boundaries of a Generous Orthodoxy

Through the wonders of the Mormon blog world I came across Taylor Petrey.  Taylor has recently landed a job at Harvard.  It is something like a visiting professor and research associate of Women’s Studies in Religion.  It really is a wonderful opportunity to have a fellow Mormon in such a position.

I would hope that someone in such a position would in many ways follow the example of one of my heroes, Truman Madsen.  Brother Madsen had serious Philosophical chops, yet I never felt that Brother Madsen was trying to steer the church in some new direction.  He seemed to take Mormonism as-is, and express its’ powerful ideas in positive ways.  I would hope that Brother Petrey would follow in such footsteps.

Yet after reviewing a couple of recent papers by Petrey, I am afraid that this may not be the case.  His articles, ‘Toward a Post Heterosexual Mormon Theology’, and ‘Rethinking Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother’ are the stuff of advocating fundamental change to Mormonism’s doctrines and teachings.

In the first article, Petrey’s basic argument is:

P1  Heavenly Father does not need to have sexual intercourse to create spirit bodies.  (Edit-a way of saying spirit bodies are not offspring of eternal parents.)

P2  We already seal same-sex people together in our temples (fathers to sons for example)

P3. Gender is not an eternal purpose or characteristic

C.  There is no reason we cannot seal and exalt homosexuals as homosexuals

I feel that the basic argument is unsound and invalid since I do not accept any premise, and because the conclusion is not demanded by them even if they were accepted.

The second article seems to me to not be so much of an argument, as a call to action, since previous discussion on Heavenly Mother has not been inclusive enough for feminists and the LGBT community.

In the second article, Petrey expresses a desire to further the discussion within ‘the boundaries of a generous orthodoxy’.  This phrase seems to be an absurd paradox to me, and is likely the stuff of positive spin.  What one calls a generous orthoxy, another may call making stuff up to advance your cause.

I am sincere when I feel like congratulating Brother Petrey on his new gig.  It really is an amazing opportunity and an admirable accomplishment.  I hope that we can look back someday and see that Taylor has had a positive influence on the world.  But I do have a concern about what appears to me to be advocating for fundamental changes in the church, and drawing something of a following after himself.  Some people would suggest a term for that type of thing, and it is not ‘generous orthodoxy’.


Why Should We Trust Anything on Family Search?

In some recent playing around, I found that on Family Search there is a direct line all the way back to Adam and Eve.  I have also found that I am a descendant of Jesus Christ through one of his children.  I don’t really believe any of this.

I have long felt that the criteria for entering names into things like Family Search is a ridiculously low bar, and that people can submit ‘information’ based on almost nothing.  It also seems that Family Search and similar data bases are so open sourced (if that is the right term), that anyone can get in and do whatever they care to do.  This would seem to include sabotage, or just goofing around.

With these possibilities I wonder if any of us should trust anything on Family Search or similar sites.  Am I over reacting to this?  Should there be something done to verify what people submit?

Consciousness: I Think, Therefore God Exists

I have been struck recently by the phenomenon that we all experience called consciousness. It really is quite a remarkable thing. If all we are is matter and chemical reactions, then where does consciousness come from? Why should individual elements which have no consciousness combine in just such a way that consciousness emerges? This is a very curious thing which gets into the philosophy of the mind, and I feel it must stay in the realm of philosophy, since there is little if anything that any science can say about it. In the 1989 International Dictionary of Psychology Stuart Sutherland wrote “Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it.”

I have felt that consciousness could be used as an argument for the existence of God. Perhaps instead of ‘I think therefore I am’ one might also say, ‘I think therefore God exists’. After doing a quick search I come to find out that there is an Argument From Consciousness. From the Wikipedia entry:

Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
The explanation is not an NSE.
Therefore the explanation is a PE.
If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

This basic argument is that a theistic explanation is a better explanation for consciousness than a naturalistic one. This seems quite compelling to me, and it surprises me that I have not heard more of this argument. What do you think about the strength of this argument?

Public Execution Theory – Another Way to Think About the Atonement

I wanted to piggy-back on a post by Jeff G. over at the New Cool Thang blog. What I thought was both novel and unique was the idea of thinking of the atonement as a type of public execution. At first glance, thinking of the atonement that way seems repulsive. I think this is largely because we assume that anyone who would publicly execute someone must be arrogant, vain, and evil. But this is not necessarily the case. The idea of Christ’s atonement being a type of voluntary public execution interests me quite a bit, and I do think it explains a lot of things like animal sacrifice, the law of Moses, Abraham and Issac, ‘not my will but thine’, repentance as returning to God, etc.

Continue reading ‘Public Execution Theory – Another Way to Think About the Atonement’

Review of ‘Lehi In Arabia’ DVD

I was very pleased to review a new DVD called, ‘Lehi In Arabia‘.  It is a feature length documentary about recent research into key specific sites in the Middle East that add plausibility to the Book of Mormon being an authentic historical record.

The two sites involved include the place that was called ‘Nahom’ which was a specific spot in the Book of Mormon where Ishmael died, and the land called Bountiful which is where Nephi built the ship.  The researchers believe that they have found these two important sites, and this DVD documents their efforts and findings.  If you have heard something about the place ‘NHM’ or of Khor Kharfot as a potential Bountiful location and would like to know more, this is the DVD for you.

This film is both devotional and scientific, which I feel members of the church will appreciate.  I particularly liked the objectivity of dismissing site after potential site for not meeting the scriptural descriptions of Bountiful until a unique and plausible site was found.  I also liked the fact that they utilized scripture for the scope of their efforts.

I feel that serious archaeological research regarding the Book of Mormon is just scratching the surface (if even that), but this effort is the deepest scratch.  I recommend this DVD for anyone interested in Book of Mormon Studies.

An Analogy of the Gospel and Chess

There have been other analogies between the Gospel and chess, but I think I have had some unique insights to add that I hope you can enjoy and relate to.

In this analogy God is playing a game of chess against Satan that has some unique twists.  In this analogy the pieces are human beings who are children of God, who do not necessarily do what either player wants them to do.  I know this is unusual to the point of saying that this is no longer chess, but I hope you can hear this out.

Continue reading ‘An Analogy of the Gospel and Chess’


I'm a Mormon.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 339 other followers

The Author


Blog Stats

  • 159,793 hits