A long time ago, in a . . . well nothing so exotic as that. But it was decades ago – when I was just starting college. My brother came by the house early one Saturday. He was driving an old Chevy Nova. “Want to go look for mines?” It was not an unusual question. The idea in his head I knew well. We would grab a couple of flashlights and head for the canyons where miners had delved for gold and silver in the deeps of time –ok, a hundred odd years back. It made me think of Brigham Young’s forthright comments

about *not* hunting for gold in those mountains. But Gentiles at least were not bound by booming voices in old tabernacles.

I grab a light and hop into the car. The glass pack mufflers rumble as we head out east. We hit a winding canyon road, and begin to climb. I wonder about our noise in this place and think about old miners with pack mules, looking for the *right place* to dig in the deep solitude of steep canyon walls and the massive mournful sound of wind in ten thousand pines – I’ve been up here when hearing that somehow near and distant voice made me feel profoundly lonely. The echo of those experiences resonants in me. It’s not pleasant. (I’m not a camper by choice and I prefer Motel 6 to a tent and sleeping bag.) These sorts of thoughts make me somber.
[Read more...]

Some scattered thoughts on politics and religion. I don’t usually indulge but I’m starting to find the situation irresistible.

Driving University Avenue in Provo, Utah is not a zero-sum game. It brings to mind the appellation “Christian.” I occasionally hear, “that’s not very Christian!” Meaning, I suppose, that some bit of speech or some action doesn’t measure up to the Sermon on the Mount.
[Read more...]

By the time I started to study with Paul Tillich, I had been told for several years that pietas and intellectus could not join. In fact, I had tried to convince everyone, including myself, of this. My experience confirmed it. My father, a generous, liberal, loving pastor who fought both fundamentalism and rationalism in his attempt to hold faith and reason together, died of cancer shortly before I started college. That was absurd. It reduced my mother, a schoolteacher and a pillar of integrity and good sense, to pious blubbering. Family friends, mostly clergy families, visited regularly and spoke soothing nonsense. They could not explain the justice or injustice of life. I have always believed since then that pastoralia is often a studied way of obscuring the big questions. In any case, the evidence was clear: one could be either a believer or intellectually honest. One could not be both.
- Max Stackhouse, emeritus professor of theology, Princeton Theological Seminary.
[Read more...]

This is a memory of childhood and perhaps only invisibly affected (or effected) by Mormonism. So sue me Steve!

As a child, around age 4 or so, my babysitters sometimes copped out, or died,* and so my parents would take me to work and keep me occupied in some inconspicuous manner. Since my mother worked for a coffin (casket was the more urbane term) maker at the time, she upholstered the interior of coffins, it was difficult and maybe a little creepy to drag me around there. Besides, her employer was not down with it.
[Read more...]

[Here is part 9.]

I’m being very brief here and I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I take lightly the work of sincere people who have thought long and hard over important questions. I leave that to Brad.

Christians (along with Muslims and Jews) have a historically mediated anxiety to *prove* that their God exists. Various attempts abound through history, and some still have followings/advocates. Two that play into Mormonism are the Ontological Argument (OA) and the Cosmological Argument (CA). The OA is often associated with St. Anselm and consists in arguing that the “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” must indeed exist (necessarily).[1]
[Read more...]

[Here is part 8.]

What does it mean for one thing to be less than another? We are natural “orderers” aren’t we? We have ordering intuitions about size, strength, speed, beauty, importance, riches, standard of living, loudness, height, and other stuff. Some of this is reasonably quantifiable, some not so much. As a schoolboy, I learned the hard truth from a sixth grade seat mate, Susan Ortiz: the girls ranked guys on a handsome scale (that wasn’t the only scale, but it was one). Are some people (or animals) more “intelligent” that others? As Mormons we are familiar with this sort of ordering by Deity:
[Read more...]

[Part 7 is here. Probably it's worth reviewing before reading this.]

I’ll begin with the Peculiar, or let’s say, Unsettling, or Cautionary. Cantor allowed that “sets” could be defined by any well-formed logical statement. As it happened, this was not precise enough. And by that I mean, you can describe collections of things by well-formed logical statements which are somehow, too large or strange. A first sign of trouble came from British mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, in the form of a paradox. This is not one of those namby-pamby literary/political/economic/theological/legal things where it seems some assumption or other leads to an outlandish or uncomfortable conclusion. No. This is a genuine fault in the system, FULL STOP.

Trouble in paradise.

[Read more...]

Last time, I briefly introduced you to Georg Cantor (1845-1918), a Russian-born Jewish Christian who became a well-known and in some quarters infamous, mathematician. Cantor systematized much of what perviously was just mystical respect for the infinite.
[Read more...]

Stephen Webb (professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College — and someone who is clearly up on his Mormonism), in his thoughtful piece at First Things writes (ht: sidebar):
[Read more...]

[See part 5 here.]

The Intrigues of the Infinite are coming to play. Whether you are confused by the infinite or have some logical grasp of it, I’m going to take you on a ride through a few of those intrigues of the past. Hold on to your logical pants.
[Read more...]

So what do BCC readers believe (check all that apply):
[Read more...]

The Institutes of Religion were and are an outreach by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to LDS college students. To a lesser extent this was and perhaps is true for faculty too. When I’ve been employed by universities outside Utah, I have always enjoyed it when an Institute was nearby because it also served as an island of friendship. For the most part, these were small operations with maybe one full-time CES person as instructor along with a part-time secretary. For me, as a faculty member, they were always an oasis in a somewhat sterile academic environment. Often a few of us would get together for lunch-time discussions with the CES personnel and those discussions were wide-ranging, feeling out the limits of gospel interaction with humanities, education and science. It was nearly always a blast because generally none of us felt threatened in our various faith-worlds during these discussions.[1] Once, three of us constituted the bishopric of one of the local wards. I was a big fan of those experiences and wonder if they are replicated in the current system. I presume they are in many places.
[Read more...]

In part 4 I looked at some “large” stuff. Now let’s think a little about the possibility that infinite things may exist.

Depending on the physics or metaphysics you subscribe to, infinite or eternal may be reality. In the physical universe we don’t live behind an “event horizon.” There is no secret universe hiding behind some information barrier.[1] Think of the universe as existing on the surface of a ballon.

Someone is blowing up this ballon. As it gets larger, the surface stretches and points formerly close together become further and further apart. There isn’t a real “center” of the universe, but everything is getting further from everything else. Space itself is expanding. Another interesting thing is going on: the further stuff is from you, the faster it is moving away from you.[2] Space is expanding locally, not into some extra dimension and not by pushing out some “edge.”[3]
[Read more...]

Journalists and pop science writers have a little fun trying to make large numbers “real” to us.[1] For example, a billion dollars in one hundred dollar denomination bills would require about ten standard storage pallets in your garage, stacked 5 feet high or so. A trillion dollars in one hundred dollar bills would occupy a warehouse with 10,000 such pallets. I don’t know what you’d spend it on, but if you spent a million dollars every day since the time of Moses, until now, you may have used up the trillion dollars. Spendthrift! Stacking up a hundred million trillion one dollar bills will get you out a bit more than one light year from earth. (Making that many dollar bills would require more than the mass of the earth – and it would take too long – not to mention the ink.)
[Read more...]

{Part 1, Part 2.}

Last time we agreed that scriptural references to the infinite should be approached with caution and often are not to be taken seriously as pointers to the “actual” infinite. Didn’t we?
[Read more...]

[Here is part 1.]

Humans do not deal directly with the infinite and there has been considerable debate on whether the idea makes sense at all. Imprecision is the name of the game where infinity is concerned.

Eventually we will see that trying to codify the idea is difficult and puzzling. It is as much a problem with intuition as logic. But first let’s look at a related discursive family: The Very Large.[1]
[Read more...]

This series examines, from a somewhat naive point of view, the meaning of “infinite” in a number of contexts. Joseph Smith delves deeply into the infinite, and in particular in funeral sermons, even though he does not engage it with rigor. (Parts of this series appeared elsewhere.)

[Read more...]

Universalism was an interesting phenomenon in early America. New England is often described as the home of the movement but the new thinking sprouted in other places too. Historian Ann Bressler argues that the movement climbed in popularity in the Northeast because it filled a gap created by the end of Puritanism’s community after the revolutionary war. In part a response to Congregational establishment, it still flourished after anti-prejudicial rules became law in Massachusetts in 1780. Baptists were angry with taxation and its role in religion. But as Janet Lindman observes, at least part of the national debate over the nature and applicability of salvation began in Pennsylvania and it was motivated by more than just taxes. There,

Elhanan Winchester¹ was advocating Unversalism and at the same time acting as head of an important Baptist congregation in the Delaware Valley.
[Read more...]

Shedding a tear with or about a friend, during a movie or a testimony or a beautiful scriptural or musical pericope is pretty common. Everyone knows of President Eyring’s near boundary to tearful expression. Occasionally I’ve heard the odd Church leader remark that the shedding of tears (usually by men) is a mark of spirituality (maybe they’re thinking: “Jesus wept”). When I’ve sat through such speech, I have felt a little inadequate (maybe only Idaho farm boys cry – kidding, I’m kidding). I don’t cry. Not that I have never cried. I have. Three or maybe four times since childhood. Once I cried for days on end. But that seems to have used up the tears and it was decades ago. Does this make me an aberration? Do serial killers cry? (You can’t trust filmography for this.)
[Read more...]

Ever kept a diary? Part of my historian avocation (nobody pays me to do it) involves reading the journals/diaries of people now long dead. A danger in doing so is taking them too seriously. Diarists vary in their ability and “desire” to robustly represent their perceptions and experience. Some seem nearly robotic (George Albert Smith for example) in reporting what they had for breakfast and who they saw that day – and little else – as though they had little or no reaction whatsoever. Others seem to give us wonderful and candid detail even where great embarrassment might come from its revelation.[1] Most edit the happenings around them, distilling their memories of the day or days into brief accounts of conversations, feelings, impressions, etc. filtered through a lens only they understand. Many write prayers and other sacred things.
[Read more...]

[I was just sitting here - thinking about where the fun speculations of 19th century Mormonism might lead, and this is what came out. Excuse its ragged form.]

Mormonism has a uniquely materialist bent. It posits that the material is necessary for complete happiness.[1] That while the world is biphasic, physical and spiritual, both are material.[2] Modern physics divides much of its attention between the very large (cosmology) and the very small (quantum phenomena). In the large, physics tells us of a universe whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere and yet expanding. That expansion is apparently going on forever, never to stop.
[Read more...]

Go together like a horse and carriage, or so the ditty says.¹ What it really means is that love=sex and you can’t have that without marriage. At least among respectable people.
[Read more...]

In physics, the holy grail in the present moment is a theory which explains, with the power of prediction, the fundamental things. The things of the small universe (weak force, strong force, electricity, magnetism) the quantum world, and the things of the big universe – essentially gravity. The historical inspiration for this frenzy was the achievement of the Scotsman, James Clerk [pronounced "Goble"] Maxwell. Maxwell proposed a version of this business, which unites the formerly disperate understandings of electricity and magnetism:

This is a rich explanation which both predicts and accounts for much of what happens in your daily life – from the operation of your cell phone, computer and television – to how your eyeglasses and contact lens behave.[1]
[Read more...]

[If you haven't seen the predecessors, here you go: part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.]

Church growth during the 1960s and 70s placed increased pressure on the apostles in their role in local priesthood organization and regulation to say nothing of bureaucratic administration at headquarters. Stake conferences were reduced in number to 2 per year, the First Council, the Assistants and Regional Representatives were in place, but more help would be needed based on growth predictions. In 1975, the First Presidency and the Twelve made public the decision to reconstitute the First Quorum. The First Council would again be known as the Presidency of the Seventy. Three new men were called into the quorum and the first quorum was defined as a body of general authorities.

One year previous to this, seventies quorums were redistributed to stake jurisdictions, no longer would quorums cross stake boundaries. For some decades, stake presidents were authorized to use the seventies in various ways. Now they had them where they wanted them.[1] The stake seventies presidencies were now the stake mission presidencies. The First Council’s role was again diminished in the lives of the quorums.

[Read more...]

[See part 4 here.] From Roberts’ death (1933) up to 1960, First Council members were called from the ranks of the seventies quorums and the elders. Still no high priests allowed. The First Council visited missions and stakes, but could not perform much administrative work there. Then in 1960, David O. McKay decided that the current members of the First Council could be ordained high priests and yet maintain their membership in that body. The news rocked the LDS world a bit (just a bit–the reason: HC 2:476. Check note 3 in part 4 for why that angst was probably unfounded). This move opened the way for the First Council to perform administrative work in the stakes on an as needed basis.[1] They went when the 12 or their assistants could not, or they (the 12) formed teams with the First Council, training them in place. The members of the First Council had never come out of the ranks of the local church leaders like bishops or stake presidents and consequently were seen as somewhat eclectic in their approach. Now things were different. The flow from below would change.
[Read more...]

[See parts one,two and three.]
The new guard among the First Council took their responsibilities seriously, met together frequently and did their best to help train the missionary force of the Church. Unfortunately the pattern in force for calling missionaries at the time made calls to elders, who were then ordained seventies and sent on their way. Hence the seventies quorums were mostly filled with men who had already served and would likely not serve again. The men of the First Council served as mission presidents from time to time, and more than once each in many cases. Most of these men were dynamic preachers and good writers. In 1901 the First Presidency and Twelve decided that elders had all necessary authority to serve as missionaries. The character of the seventies quorums began to change. More on this later.
[Read more...]

[See part 1 and part 2.] The year Brigham died (1877) a massive reorganization took place in local church operations. President Young staffed Intermountain West stakes (getting apostles out of the business of being stake presidents), releasing the corps of “acting” bishops, filling out bishoprics with high priests as counselors, filling high council vacancies, redrawing stake boundaries for more effective work, etc. (12 stakes were organized in 1877, an unheard of number). The effect on the seventies was large -they filled the gaps in high priest need by being ordained to the high priesthood – and at the same time, a moratorium was instituted on ordaining new seventies. After Brigham’s death and the 1880 reorganization of the First Presidency, John Taylor began to pressure the First Council (three of whom were non-functioning and one deceased without being replaced) to deliver names of seventies to fill mission assignments.
[Read more...]

One of the things that plagued the office of Seventy was its position relative to the high priesthood (I use the term as it was used in the 19th century – a synonym for the office of high priest). While Joseph does not seem to have given too much thought to these kinds of questions, Brigham Young had expansive views on both the apostleship and the office of Seventy. With the huge expansion of seventies quorums, indeed their intended use as the major component of the missionary force of the Church, the question was often raised as to how these officers could manage or ordain high priests should that occasion arise. Brigham saw the apostles as superior to the high priests out of necessity. Moreover, it was the apostles who were in charge when it came to the esoteric ordinances of the future temple. Running counter to this was the considerable status conferred by revelation and history on the high priests. The apostles took every opportunity to assert not only their right to direct and regulate the high priesthood, but Brigham at least saw the Seventy in a similar light.
[Read more...]

Recently the Church web site, lds.org ran a three part series (with President Boyd K. Packer and President Ronald A. Rasband) on the Seventy and their current relationship with the Twelve Apostles. That got me thinking about this group of Church leaders and with conference coming, it seemed appropriate to talk about them a little.
[Read more...]