At Peculiar People, commentary on Nate Oman's "Jurisprudence and Church Doctrine." There is more to think about than just doctrine. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
At NRO: The Mormon Advantage. Reading blogs and Facebook, it's easy to forget we are doing some things right. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
LDS Psychologist who advised CIA on "interrogation" was bishop for just 1 week before asking to be released. (Kent) ... See MoreSee Less
Geoff and Al weigh in on the Mormon of the Year. Will their nomination get seconded? (Kent) ... See MoreSee Less
Reposting the announcement of the BYU & Maxwell Institute 2015 Summer Seminar because the previous version of this post left out the link to the application form. (Nathaniel) ... See MoreSee Less
Why can't we hear talks like this at Conference? A little light humor in place of the annual sort-of-an-audit report. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Leavening the lump and moral psychology. (James) ... See MoreSee Less
Bringing data to bear on how many young adults are active in the Church. Unfortunately no standard errors. (Frank) ... See MoreSee Less
A new low for M-Star, labeling JD a cancer within the Church. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
In this article, the Slate.com "Book Review critics suggest 27 great books you never heard about—but should’ve." And Terryl Givens' "Wrestling the Angel" shows up on the list! (Nathaniel) ... See MoreSee Less
Wow. (Julie) ... See MoreSee Less
Managing the Mormon brand. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
How to create change within the LDS Church: get the media involved. (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Sam Brown and Craig H. in the Washington Post's "10 Things" series: or, what do you wish people knew? ... See MoreSee Less
Stay tuned for some exciting changes coming to Times & Seasons! (Julie) ... See MoreSee Less
I have a line in my book about Joseph Smith being the Copernican theologian par excellence. Does that stimulate any thought?
Does Joseph Smith’s theology exploit the possibilities opened up by an infinitely expanding universe?
The heavens change! Spots come and go on the Sun, and God was once a man! Oops, it was Galileo who discovered sunspots, wasn’t it? : )
Why Copernicus instead of Galileo? Because Galileo has been used so much as an occasion to ridicule religion as being full of superstition? Copernicus is tricky because yes, he turned the heavens nearly inside-out, but some people might think a geocentric model (pre-Copernican) of the cosmos is more analogous to the highly anthropomorphic LDS view of God. (Randy Paul of course would say actually it’s a highly *theo*morphic view of *humans*)
What about Albert Einstein? : )
I think that Smith fits better into the Caperinican model than you might allow. After all, the solar centric model was really favored by most of the religious/magical/cosmological mystics in the late western tradition. I think Francis Yates has a good discussion of this in her biography of Giordano Bruno. This school of thought tended to give more weight (both literal and figurative) to the sun, which was often associated with the divine. So it wasn’t really all tht difficult to make everyting else revolve around it. Also, one reading of the Book of Abraham might indicate that while the text has a geo/human centric model of the cosmos, Fac. 2 does not. It puts the divine right in the mysical middle of the text, rather than placing it in a far off sphere.
I think Joseph Smith could fit into BOTH groupings. He saw God and man as the center of the Universe, but that was only part of the story. At other times Joseph Smith didn’t even put God at the center, as much as God as a continuation of an eternal reality. I think that Joseph Smith was much more of an Einstienian Relativist; the center of things depended on what view you were describing in relation to others.