Save the Date: Interpreter Symposium on Science & Mormonism

The Interpreter Foundation (Daniel Peterson and other FARMS cast-offs) is sponsoring a symposium, Science & Mormonism: Cosmos, Earth & Man, November 9 at the Utah Valley Convention Center. It looks like a great line-up, including David Bailey, Steve Peck, and (tentatively) Michael Whiting. Admission is free but seating is limited, so register if you want to attend.

Alas, I will not be there because I don't live near Utah. Events like this sometimes make me wish I did. Let's hope that transcripts will be made available!

---

Continue reading...

Joseph Smith and Symmes's Hole

Today, Slate.com's history blog calls attention to the attempt in 1818 by John Cleves Symmes, Jr to assemble an expedition to the North Pole. (If you click over you can see a copy of the circular he distributed.) Symmes had come to the conclusion that Earth is hollow inside and perfectly habitable. He traveled Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New England promoting his theory, gaining a small following in Cincinnati. Rejecting Newton's theories of gravity, his ideas mostly brought ridicule. Nevertheless, Symmes was an entertaining and convincing presenter; apparently he even convinced a group of Harvard students who had to be disabused of the nonsense by their professors. He died in 1829, apparently from stomach problems.

Over the course of Church history a variety of ideas have circulated as to the location of the lost Ten Tribes. It's more of a fringe thing now, but you can still find people who think that the Ten Tribes live inside a hole at the North Pole. Typically D&C 133 is cited as evidence along with an alleged corroborating statement by Joseph Smith, who is reported to have compared Earth to the shape of a kettle, with the Ten Tribes living inside. Is this the legacy of "Symmes's hole?"

Symmes was not the only person to have postulated a hollow Earth, but he promoted it heavily. I don't know whether he passed through Joseph's neighborhood, but I can envision Joseph and friends attending one of his lectures and coming away impressed. Even more plausible, given Symmes's following in Ohio, is that early converts in Kirtland brought the idea to Joseph's attention. The first volume of the LDS newspaper, Evening and Morning Star, published June 1832 in Independence, Missouri, contained a reference to "the theory of Capt. Symmes" in connection to a report of some kind of sink hole. However, the story appears to have been reprinted from a New York publication, so whether the LDS readership would have understood this reference is a matter of speculation, as far as I can tell.

I don't know whether Joseph actually espoused the hollow Earth theory, but a part of me likes to think that he did. He had a creative and hungry mind; I'm willing to grant him some space to speculate and think out loud, without feeling like I have to conform my every opinion to his.

---

Continue reading...

Pitch Illustrates Geological Time in a Lifetime

Perhaps my favorite feature of Provo Canyon (right) is the bent rock layer toward the southern end of the canyon. How can solid rock bend like that? How, indeed. Young-earth creationists point to these kinds of geological features as evidence that the strata were laid down during Noah's flood, adding that no human alive was there to observe the process. It's easy to imagine wet earth bending and then solidifying into rock, which is perhaps one reason why this view of geology is common in the U.S. But things aren't always as they seem.

In 1927 a professor in Australia heated pitch--basically asphalt--and put it into a funnel. Pitch shatters if struck with a hammer, yet it also flows as a liquid...very slowly. In the intervening time, drops of pitch fell from the funnel about once per decade. Predicting when exactly that drop would fall was difficult, and until a couple of weeks ago the actual drop had never been witnessed. (It had been missed by as little as 15 minutes.) However, this time was successful; the drop was observed by both human and electronic eyes. Go read this Atlantic article for a more complete and interesting tale.

Seeing the pitch drop helps make the folding of rock layers in Provo canyon and elsewhere easier to imagine. When exposed to heat and pressure, they become more malleable than we would otherwise think, and over millions of years the rock can be bent and folded. Of course imagination does not constitute evidence, but a little real-life demonstration can help make abstract concepts, developed based on multiple lines of evidence, more concrete (ha!).

So the next time someone expresses incredulity at the proposition of rock layers bending and folding, point them to the pitch drop experiment. And as a bonus, when they say that you weren't there millions of years ago to observe geological processes, you can point out that for almost 70 years nobody was there to see the pitch drop either.

---

Continue reading...

Adoption, Creation, and Spirit Birth: It's All Matter

Let's do a thought experiment. We'll imagine 6 different parallel universes where Bob and Jane have been trying to have a child but not had success yet.

Universe 1: After years of trying, Jane conceived at last and eventually gave birth to a baby boy.

Universe 2: After years of trying, Bob and Jane tried in vitro fertilization. One embryo implanted, and Jane eventually gave birth to a baby boy.

Universe 3: After years of trying, Bob and Jane each submitted a gamete for analysis of the genome. From this information, a synthetic embryo was manufactured and then implanted. Jane eventually gave birth to a baby boy.

Universe 4: After years of trying, Bob and Jane had a synthetic embryo made (as in #3). It developed in an artificial womb, after which Jane and Bob had a baby boy.

Universe 5: After years of trying, Bob and Jane had their genomes sequenced and a computer simulated meiosis. Based on the results, a synthetic embryo was made and it developed in an artificial womb. Jane and Bob had a baby boy.

Universe 6: In this universe, bodies don't produce gametes. Rather, embryos mysteriously already exist in the earth. Bob and Jane identified a human-forming embryo, initiated its development and raised their baby boy.

Question: Is there any real difference between these boys? Won't each look and act a little like his parents? Can't each grow up to be a policeman, marry and have a family of his own, etc?

The most recent issue of BYU Studies has an article by Samuel Brown, "Believing Adoption," (paywall) where he reflects on adoption theology, a feature of the early Church. As a matter of course he considers questions of pre-mortal spirit birth vs adoption. Drawing on his understanding of Joseph Smith's view, Brown holds that:

In the premortal world, God desired the further progression, development, and happiness of the intelligent spirits who surrounded him. In an act of intense metaphysical and sacerdotal power, Elohim claimed these intelligences as his own—he “adopted” them, organizing them into a celestial kindred. Recognizing the ontological affinities between himself and the uncreated spiritual beings who became his children, God brought us out of our earliest existence and into the relationship that represented our development as spirit children. Joseph taught that we are all self-existent in some fundamental way but that we are interdependent, and God’s great creative act was acknowledging and embracing that interdependence.

After further discussion, including acknowledgment that spirit birth has enjoyed support from General Authorities, he concludes:

Some may feel that adoption theology takes away from the possibility that humans and God are conspecific, that they are ontologically similar to each other. It is natural to see references to being the “literal” children of God as requiring a spirit birth model of divine parenthood, but that is not entirely true. While the theology of spirit birth makes it somewhat easier to imagine ontological similarity between God and humans, nothing about adoption requires ontological difference. There is nothing necessary about the connection between spirit birth and ontological identity. In fact, a basic interpretation of Joseph Smith’s teachings on this point suggests that God saw entities who were less mature, rather than ontologically distinct, and he sought to enable their greater maturity. I believe that we are, in some crucial way, con-specific with God, and that he has adopted us. We are not just his pets or his creatures; the relationships of adoption are the relationships of beings who share some important level of identity and reciprocity. That relationship is literally real and eternally potent regardless of whether we conceive it as celestial gestation or premortal adoption.

Now let's look at a talk by Elder Tad R. Callister titled, "Our Identity and Our Destiny," published earlier this year in Religious Educator. The talk is mainly a defense of the LDS concept of exaltation (i.e. godhood), but in setting up his argument Elder Callister says,

[The scriptures] teach that we are more than creations of God; they teach that we are the literal spirit offspring or children of God our Father. What difference does this doctrinal distinction make? The difference is monumental in its consequence because our identity determines in large measure our destiny. For example, can a mere creation ever become like its creator? Can a building ever become an architect? A painting a painter? Or an invention an inventor? If not, then those who believe we are creations of God, rather than His spirit offspring, reach the inevitable conclusion that we do not have the capacity to become like our creator, God.

Later he continues:

Science has taught us that a complex genetic code transferred from parent to child is responsible for the child attaining the physical attributes of his parents. If this be so, is it illogical to assume that spirit offspring receive a spiritual code giving to them the divine characteristics and potential of their parent—God—thus making them gods in embryo? No, it is but a fulfillment of the law that like begets like. This is the same truth taught by the prophet Lorenzo Snow:

We were born in the image of God our Father; He begat us like unto Himself. There is the nature of Deity in the composition of our spiritual organization. In our spiritual birth, our Father transmitted to us the capabilities, powers and faculties which He possessed, as much so as the child on its mother’s bosom possesses, although in an undeveloped state, the faculties, powers and susceptibilities of its parent.

It appears that Elder Callister would disagree with Brown and advocate spirit birth.

I don't have a dog in this fight because it is of such a speculative nature, but let's take Elder Callister's reasoning to its logical conclusion. If physical attributes are a function of the arrangement of matter (e.g. genetic sequence, or organization of whole body), then it is plausible that spiritual characteristics are similarly a function of the arrangement of spirit matter (whatever that is). Our ability to manipulate physical matter is crude, which is why we rely on our reproductive systems to make offspring. Basically conception and gestation are just a process of organizing matter. But as technology and our ability to directly manipulate matter improves, the scenarios in the above alternate universes become increasingly possible. Presumably God has this kind of power and is, as Jesus said (perhaps hyperbolically), "able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." If God has that kind of ability when it comes to the physical, why not the spiritual also?

Thought of in this light, in my opinion the distinctions between spirit creation, spirit birth, and adoption largely evaporate. It all boils down to the method of organization (i.e. whether that organization is primordial, or how God does it). Our destiny, to use Elder Callister's term, is a function of both the arrangement of our physical and spiritual matter, and God's relationship with us. I don't see how it makes any difference how that organization happened.

---

Continue reading...

Material Continuity in the Resurrection and Bold Inquiry

You have probably seen the following quote from Joseph Smith before, delivered at an 1843 conference in response to a speech by Orson Pratt:

There is no fundamental principle belonging to a human system that ever goes into another in this world or in the world to come; I care not what the theories of men are. We have the testimony that God will raise us up, and he has the power to do it. If any one supposes that any part of our bodies, that is, the fundamental parts thereof, ever goes into another body, he is mistaken (History of the Church, 5:339)

I'm currently reading Samuel Brown's book, In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death, and chapter 2 contains a discussion of the material continuity of the body. It turns out that there was already a large discussion within Christianity on what the emerging findings of science (especially chemistry and biology) meant for the resurrection. It was already apparent that living organisms constantly exchanged matter with their environment. Would the resurrected body be composed of the same matter as the mortal body, or would the structure only remain the same? According to Brown,

...Smith allowed the possibility that a body might contain surplus matter, that perhaps “vegetable” matter could be excluded from the resurrection body. However...no significant part of the material body could disappear. However circular the reasoning, Smith would not abandon the requirement for material continuity. Like many of his lay peers, Smith believed that to allow a reshuffling of physical material threatened a death powerful enough to destroy personal integrity and the promise of postmortal community.

If Joseph's position was scientifically untenable then, it is all the more so now. But I like the boldness with which early church leaders tackled conceptual problems. Just a few years previous to Joseph's statement quoted above, Parley Pratt had taken on the same issue in the Millenial Star (although coming to a different conclusion). After acknowledging that objections to the resurrection on the grounds of overlapping claims to matter were superficially plausible, he turned his displeasure to a certain class of defenders.

While, on the other hand, these objections have been met by superstition, bigotry, and ignorance, not with a design to enlighten the understanding or to inform and convince the judgment, but with an endeavor to throw a veil of sacredness over the whole subject, as if it were a mystery to be believed without the possibility of understanding it.

Perhaps a few sentences like the following have been sufficient to smother all further enquiry:-"Ignorance is the mother of devotion." "Don't let your mind think on such subjects, it is a temptation to infidelity." "It is wicked to enquire into such things." "All things are possible with God," &c.

I like Parley's no-nonsense attitude!

---

Continue reading...

My Plan for Stopping Tornadoes

What, if anything, should we do about tornadoes? James P. Pinkerton at The American Conservative thinks that the mainstream media are too wrapped up in sentimentalism and green ideology to be interested in practical solutions.

So these are the two dominant media narratives: sweetly sentimental and greenly ideological. And it’s a safe bet that the green agenda will resonate in the MSM long after reporters have lost interested in heartwarming stories from plucky survivors.

It might prove to be the case that climate change is the greatest threat that humanity faces. Maybe the American people can be persuaded that the changing climate is a more urgent problem than terrorism, or poverty, or joblessness. Maybe, also, the Chinese and Indians can be persuaded to forgo economic growth by reducing their carbon footprints. And even poorer peoples, too.

Yet even so, it still couldn’t hurt to give some consideration to shorter-term threats, such as people being killed, and places being wrecked, by tornadoes.

That is, whatever the future of climate-change efforts, we could have a dynamic, science-based discussion about reducing the lethality of tornadoes.

I'm willing to grant that the MSM can be a little ridiculous in the way they cover tragedies. And of course we'll have lots of tornadoes whether or not the globe continues to warm. So what about this science-based discussion?

But if we could pretend for a moment that tornadoes were threatening Washington, DC, and not some place in flyover country, we could then start thinking about next steps, beyond warning and basement-building.

We could, and would, think about actually stopping tornadoes. Ideas for stopping tornadoes are, in fact, abundant. Yet in the wake of this deadly tornado, the media will offer little, if any, discussion of such ideas. Why not? Why this lack of interest?

Perhaps it’s because, as we have seen, media bandwidth has been allocated to narratives of sweet sentimentalizing and green ideologizing. Either the storm proves the moral worth of Sooners, or else it proves the need for action on climate change. But that seems to be all. In other words, new action to stop tornadoes from killing is sort of beside the point; it’s certainly outside of the twin narrative.

The links are in the original piece. The first is a link to an online physics discussion forum and, while I didn't read all 6 pages, in my perusal I didn't find anything much more than arm-chair speculation. The second link is an interview with a tornado scientist where the last question addresses this question, and the answer is extremely vague--probably because of the enormity of such a task. The third link is to some guy's patented idea for shooting a water mist over a city to cool the air. Folks on that physics forum appear to be of the opinion that misting the air would only make things worse. I think it's also fair to ask whether that's a wise use of water in a place already under drought stress.

So in spite of the abundance of ideas, those are the three evidences offered by Pinkerton. He goes on to admit that we don't even know if stopping tornadoes is possible, but who knows what technology will bring?

...new technology will always confound the conventional wisdom. Such confounding is the nature of scientific revolutions, and it would help if the media, the great collective maker of conventional wisdom, could make room for that reality. That is, if the media could add a third narrative idea—the idea that we can apply science to solve deadly problems, even in the short run.

So let me get this straight. Renewable energy sources that reduce our contribution to CO2-mediated warming are the fevered dream of green ideologues, but if we would just put on our thinking caps we might find a way to stop tornadoes and save people now.

This is just silly, and it's pretty thin gruel for MSM bias--to the point that it's almost a parody of such complaints. I know this is crazy, but maybe nobody is chasing this angle because it is as impractical as moving Mt. Everest to Nebraska. I'm all for practical solutions, but stopping something that develops with little warning and has the energy of multiple nuclear bombs is a tall order. Why, at this point, should we expect the MSM to take this seriously?

But not to worry, because a solution is already at hand. We just need to get Pecos Bill better transportation than a horse.

---

Continue reading...

The Changing Political Climate on Climate

Good Republicans don't worry about climate change--except as a liberal plot to destroy freedom. That's the stereotype you get listening to conservative media outlets--or liberal outlets reporting on conservatives. But a National Journal article suggests that, much like the effects of climate change, quiet but real shifts are beginning to occur within the party.

Mother and daughter Roberta and Michele Combs are pillars of the Religious Right. Roberta, president and CEO of the Christian Coalition America, got her start in Republican politics working with celebrated strategist Lee Atwater. Michele, who was named Young Republican of the Year in 1989 and worked as a planner for events such as George W. Bush’s inauguration, is the coalition’s communications director. With their white-blond bouffant hair, penchant for fuchsia lipstick, soft South Carolina accents, and sterling conservative bona fides, the Combses are familiar presences in the ruby-red heart of the GOP establishment.

That’s why it’s so surprising to many that they are tackling climate change. But both women see global warming, and clean air and environmental protection more broadly, as issues that tie into their core conservative mission of protecting family values.

“This is an important issue for the Republican Party,” Roberta Combs says. “At one point in time, this was a Republican issue, but Democrats took it over.”

Took it over? That's kind of like saying the air took over the land when the tide ran out. Nevertheless, the article paints a picture of increasing concern about the climate among Republican operatives and politicians. They just can't be too vocal about it yet.

Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant.

One thread I want to pick up on comes from the opening of the article, which introduces climate scientist Kerry Emanuel.

Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973. The aspiring scientist was turned off by what he saw as the Left’s blind ideology....Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist.

Emanuel sees an inversion taking place, at least with respect to the climate, which reminds me of something Kevin Drum wrote a couple of weeks ago.

On the right, both climate change and questions about global limits on oil production have exited the realm of empirical debate and become full-blown fronts in the culture wars. You're required to mock them regardless of whether it makes any sense. And it's weird as hell. I mean, why would you disparage development of renewable energy?

If the National Journal's article is to be believed, things are quietly changing.

---

Continue reading...

The Church's Position on Embryonic Stem-cell Research

Embryonic stem cells are back in the news, so I thought it might be worth reminding everyone of the Church's position. It can be found in two places that I know of.

First:

Misstatement: “Mormons, for example, oppose abortion, but find some embryonic stem cell research morally acceptable. According to Mormon belief, life does not begin until a human embryo attaches to the mother's uterus after about 14 days. That is the moment, according to Mormon theology, at which the human spirit joined with human flesh and a resulting full human being is created.”

Fact: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins. Further, the Church has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.

Also:

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research.

Okay, time for a quiz. True or false?
1. According the the Church, life begins at conception.
2. The Church opposes research using stem cells derived from embryos.
3. According to the Church, embryonic stem-cell research is acceptable because the embryos do not have a spirit.
4. The Church's official position on when life begins and the morality of embryonic stem cells is that it has no position.
5. Any Church member, including priesthood leaders, who makes definitive statements about the Church's position for or against these matters (absent new official communication) is misinformed.


Answers:
1. False
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. True

---

Continue reading...