At First Things, awhile back: Terryl Givens on baptisms for the dead (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
The only way you might think kilts for scouts would be a good idea is if you had never actually worked with a young teen boy. ... See MoreSee Less
Some interesting thoughts from Ziff (no numbers this time). ... See MoreSee Less
Mormons and Millennialism (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
About Social Media http://wp.me/porgd-8bf ... See MoreSee Less
Elder Bednar talks on social media at BYU Education Week (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
The case for softcore apologetics (Dave) ... See MoreSee Less
Wise words on faith challenges, apologetics, and the Book of Abraham in particular. ... See MoreSee Less
Washington Post's "Faith Street" series on evangelizing asks what it's like to be an unsuccessful evangelizer, and naturally turns to the hugely unsuccessful Craig H. for a highly experienced Mormon response. ... See MoreSee Less
TimesandSeasons.org shared a link. ... See MoreSee Less
12 Questions for Miranda Wilcox and John Young, Editors of Standing Apart—Part II http://wp.me/porgd-89B ... See MoreSee Less
The Hypothetical “Missionary Library” http://wp.me/porgd-8aK ... See MoreSee Less
Why would a Mormon fellow publish his Mormon story about his Mormon mission with a traditional Christian publisher like Eerdmans? And why would venerable old Eerdmans want to publish such a Mormony thing? ... See MoreSee Less
More of Ziff's so-called awesomeness: ... See MoreSee Less
An SL Trib article discusses a recent survey circulated to 1000 randomly selected Church members. Run by the Research Information Division. Which is part of the Correlation Department. So Correlation runs the surveys that are supposed to produce data telling senior leaders how Correlation is screwing up. Right. (Dave) ... 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.