- Jonathan Green on Redeeming the Dead: More Than Just “Doing Names”: “Roger, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you describe yourself as an agnostic, and so I assume you have not participated in temple worship in many years. At this point in your life, you may not be able to understand why members of the Church value the temple. But temples are sites of profoundly sacred experiences that many Church members find deeply meaningful. Building additional temples makes it possible to have these experiences much more frequently that we could otherwise. Anxiety about the status of deceased family members is by no means unique to Latter-day Saints – you can find examples going back many centuries. But temples and the related doctrines give us some concrete answers that many members find much more satisfying than “God will figure it out,” and so temples are deeply important to many members of the Church. Fortunately the Church has the resources to help members in underdeveloped countries both by providing temples and other religious goods, and by providing inexpensive access to education and other ways to develop human capital. There’s no need to choose one over the other when we can do both. I don’t know what value you see in telling people that their most sacred religious experiences are worthless, but I wish you would stop.” Nov 14, 19:25
- on Redeeming the Dead: More Than Just “Doing Names”: “This proposition has all kinds of problems. Work for the dead is Plan B. Only a micro percentage of earthly inhabitants have had a chance to enjoy the gospel and be tested. So why such an inefficient system? Since we apparently live forever, why not just do it during the millennium? Work for the dead seems like a make work project. Wouldn’t we be better off helping the living? Half the membership is now living in underdeveloped countries. Let’s help them. The book seems like a justification for all the temples being built. When I was young there were 9 temples total. Now are 9 temples either completed or under construction in Utah County. We excessive, probably.” Nov 14, 17:21
- on Redeeming the Dead: More Than Just “Doing Names”: “I like this–a lot. Thanks, Chad.” Nov 14, 11:13
- on Believing Blood is Probably a Real Thing : “Given what we know about mental health issues and temperament in general having a hereditary component, it seems likely that belief does too. The next question in my mind is the mechanism: are there certain hereditary mental characteristics that make belief in God more likely, or is belief itself biological for some people? Given how some people seem to inherently believe in God prior to any evidence or argument, the latter seems plausible. (On the other hand, my primary example of that kind of person is my mother and I’m definitely not one of them, so go figure.) This also creates yet another dimension for the “moral luck” we’ve discussed before. But for this to have evolutionary implications, the relationship between religiosity and fertility needs to be stable for many generations, and that has yet to be demonstrated. Some religions don’t have a higher fertility rate, so the relationship seems cultural rather than biological. Religions that maintain pro-natalist theology and practice should have higher fertility, assuming they can maintain it. But if the religious are just slower to change than the non-religious–and that does fit the data so far–then if the secular birthrate ever stops dropping then we’d expect the religious birthrate to converge to it. Meanwhile, there’s still a lot of dated neo-Malthusian thinking in the secular world, which has to go away eventually. (Though there’s no better way to keep a zombie idea going than to make it the subject of a partisan divide.) In a hundred years, when the effects of population decrease are obvious, I can imagine fertility becoming a secular virtue that erases the difference between the religious and non-religious.” Nov 14, 08:48
- on Believing Blood is Probably a Real Thing : “Jonathan Green and Hoosier: I have wondered if the genetic and cultural imprint from the handful of super fertile polygamous patriarchs in early Utah stage has materially affected LDS culture. It’s the kind of thing that is super speculative with no way of testing, but it seems like if you removed the Youngs and Kimballs from the LDS experience it would be noticeably different. ReTx: I definitely think there are people disposed towards moral stridency and well, Haidt’s “Righteous Mind,” but that can be manifested through social thought and politics and well as religion, so I think there are other dispositions that might feed into religion, like the disposition to believe in a higher power like I mentioned. Sute: I haven’t double checked the numbers or anything, but on skimming it it actually looks pretty good! One point it raised that I didn’t address is that if the leaving rate is large enough the prevalence of religious genes can reach a sort of equilibrium instead of just completely taking over. So somewhat impressed that it can draw additional conclusions from my premises.” Nov 14, 08:08
- on Believing Blood is Probably a Real Thing : “Why wait? I gave chatgpt your paper along with your question. Good or garbage? https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6916c59a2a6c81919800ba53b6298621” Nov 13, 23:02
- on Believing Blood is Probably a Real Thing : “I find this stuff fascinating. I heard about the idea of a ‘religious gene’ years ago and have always wondered if this works maps onto Jonathan Haidt’s Righteous Mind work. And from there into political divisions. Because it is religiosity that is a gene? Or is it value systems that match up with common denominators in religions? Or something else?” Nov 13, 20:04
- on Non-Member Callings and Part-Member Families: “Unpopular opinion incoming: I disagree that pianist, organist and choir director should be non-member callings. Music is MORE important to the spirituality of a gathering than the speakers or teachers. A music leader ought not just to be a member of the church, but someone who has the ability to cultivate love and the spirit in the meeting- shine a torch of light. It’s not just about technical skill. That being said, I would NEVER turn away anyone who wanted to sing in a choir, be part of an ensemble or special large musical performance, etc. But I think they should play with the saints, not lead. Additionally, family celebrations and funerals should always welcome non-LDS performers and speakers. But I find it fascinating why this calling was one thrown out as a non-member calling when teacher was not, even in the primary, or Elders Quorum where the high priests are probably sleeping anyway.” Nov 13, 09:22
- on Non-Member Callings and Part-Member Families: “Don’t forget that certain non-members can be Bishop. (D&C 68:14-20). All they have to be is of the tribe of Levi/Literal descendants of Aaron. No need to be members or even ordained to the PH*. Of course, being bishop might be more of a deterrent to membership and participation for our non-member friends.” Nov 13, 09:07
- on Believing Blood is Probably a Real Thing : “Since polygamy came up recently in a couple of different places, it’s on the mind. I’m struck by the idea that, though women in polygynous marriages were less fertile than the statistical norm, polygyny did guarantee that the zealous or devout almost universally got the chance to reproduce with somebody else who carried the genes. If you were a man with the gene (Heber C. Kimball certainly fits the profile, for instance) then your comparative fertility would be stratospheric. If “believing blood” is a thing than the first couple generations of the faith were probably infused with it at a higher level than normal. I’m not sure any other phenomenon could increase it to the same degree outside of a selection event (which we seem to be undergoing albeit slower.)” Nov 13, 09:05
