Predictably, a post attempting to sound positive feminist notes devolved into a debate over nature vs. nurture—biology vs. socialization—in gender roles and aptitudes. (I am beginning to think that despite the best of intentions, such attempts by men can only come across as tinkling cymbals and sounding brass to female ears. I’m crossing feminist perspectives off the Spinozist agenda next to my picture in the sidebar. Leave the task to women, who are born for it; men apparently cannot be bred to it.) Nate notes that “if you look in the Book of Mormon, we see ‘nature’ identified almost exclusively with sin and evil. On the other hand, the route to divinity seems to be via conventions such as commandments or covenants.” Yes, but Joseph’s later theological development has a much more optimistic take on the nature of man as children of God than the more pessimistic view of the Book of Mormon. (more…)

Kaimi posted about doctrines that, rather than receive formal correction or repudiation, are simply ignored by the prophets, seers, and revelators, and thereby allowed to fade gently into oblivion. Existing somewhere (and sometimes currently) in print, they “cannot truly be killed — but neither are they really alive.” I think Kaimi’s mistake in connection with his fears of these ‘zombie doctrines’ is his use of the word “doctrine.” (more…)

Last week’s edition of The Weakest Links, available on the sidebar under the heading “Temporalia (Week of 21 August),” started off with three links and ended with seven. This post provides a place to sound off on this week’s links. (more…)

I will not give a very detailed answer, but I should at least sketch how I would answer my own non-quantitative Fermi problem on Mormonism: Compare and contrast Mormonism and McDonald’s. (more…)

UPDATE: Unconscionably, I failed to go check for a Wikipedia article on Fermi problems before posting this. The article has a probably more correct detail on the Trinity episode, another famous example, and a link to a collection of Fermi problems.

Enrico Fermi, a towering figure in 20th-century physics with extraordinary ambidextrous talent for both experimental and theoretical physics, supposedly had a particular style of problem he liked to inflict upon students and colleagues. An example possessing an elegance that moves a physicist to tears: swept into the Manhattan Project along with a torrent of scientific talent driven to the United States by European fascism, legend has it that he knew the explosive yield at Trinity essentially immediately—certainly long before mountains of data collected by a detailed network of sensors could be analyzed—by comparing the distance his dropped handkerchief was dropped pieces of paper were blown by the passing blast wave with a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation. Armed with this combination of theoretical insight and a close feel for the ‘real world,’ he reportedly boasted of being able to calculate anything, anything at all you could measure quantitatively, within 20%—and he liked to see if others could, too. (more…)

Ask, and ye shall receive. I’ve installed another plugin, which I found here, that allows readers to mouse-over and click the number of stars they want to give a post. A sharper instrument than the up-or-down comment ranking, but subtle minds will still want to leave comments…

I’ve installed a plugin, which I found here, that allows readers to give individual comments a thumbs-up (by clicking on “+” next to the running tally of votes) or thumbs-down (by clicking on the “-”). I’m curious to see if people like using it. A blunt instrument, to be sure—but hey, if you have a more nuanced response, you’re free to leave a comment!

After several weeks of neglect, the heading “Temporalia (Week of 21 August)” on the sidebar once again contains a growing list of links to things I stumble across that momentarily pique my interest this week, but for which I do not have sufficient time, or interest, or insight, to provide the degree of value-added content that the high standards of the The Spinozist Mormon require of a separate blog post. This post provides a place to sound off on one of the links I provide, whether it be the content of the link, or my witty description of it, or my exquisite taste and selectivity in the offerings provided. You can see the most recent installment’s list of links and comments thereon here. (more…)

In the discussion that followed my query as to why the Lord forbids the expression of same-sex attraction on a ‘for-time-only’ basis in now-recognized cases of a lifetime absence of opposite-sex attraction, I wondered if Church leaders’ evolving understanding of the nature of homosexuality might be evidence that the Lord hasn’t actually expressed a strong opinion on the matter. What, it may then be asked, about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? Is this not a clear statement of the Lord’s view? (more…)

Matt Thurston has asked me if I see no options between (a) the doctrine and authority of Mormonism being essentially valid, literally true, and not subject to major-league errors, and (b) there being nothing aside from this life. I do recognize that there are logical possibilities between these poles, but I tend to think they founder on either evidentiary or practical grounds. (more…)

While I cannot empathize in an experiential way with male-male attraction, I can say that I would be uncomfortable using my preference alone as a basis for forbidding others from acting on such feelings. A recent Church press resource on the issue—consisting of an interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman—affirms, however, that it is not any human policy, but rather the Lord’s decree, that proscribes same-sex relations. Nevertheless, their reasoning about the nature of same-sex attraction—which many in the discussion at M* hail, rightly, I think, as an ‘advance’—raises a new question. (more…)

If there is anything thing in this world that can compete with the surety of death and taxes, it is the male sex drive, machine-like in its unconsciously persistent reliability. Appropriately, men are trained to keep it suitably discreet, controlled, and channeled; but perhaps some men succeed at this so admirably that they become unrealistically idealized by some women as not only being able to keep such appetites and passions bounded, but as being hardly contaminated by having them at all. (more…)

Kaimi, wearing his feminist hat, has a guest post at Feminist Mormon Housewives about polyandry. While I’m sympathetic to the desire for equal opportunity (or equal restriction) in this arena, as a historical matter it must be emphasized that Joseph never intended polyandry to be eternal. Its practice was only a temporary mortal concession to the complexities of a messy transition period to eternal (and plural) marriage. (more…)

Eric Russell’s report of Friday at the Sunstone Symposium includes a brief but interesting description of a panel discussion that touched on “the tension between art and the church as experienced by Richard Dutcher, Brian Evenson, and Neil LaBute.” I have not taken steps as drastic as those taken by Evenson and LaBute, and for now at least hope it doesn’t come to that for me; but having just a few days ago commented about the lesser but nevertheless (for me) difficult steps I have taken to be ‘true’ to myself or whatever, I was interested in Johnna’s report that “LaBute told Dutcher at one point that in order to fulfill his vision as a director he would someday be faced with choosing between his church membership and his work.” (more…)

Don’t you hate it when your day begins with a rude etymological shock? I learned today that for a very long time I have misunderstood, or at least only partially understood, Sir Thomas More’s famous coinage: utopia. On the strength of my residual puerile understanding from one of those 4th grade ‘gifted’ classes on the Latin and Greek elements of modern English, I had always ‘known’ without reservation that it meant ‘good’—even ideal—’place,’ from the Greek eu (good) + topos (place). What was my surprise, then, to see in no less an authority than Merriam-Webster that, no, the only derivation listed is ou (not, no) + topos (place). Utopia is ‘no place,’ that is to say, ‘a place which does not exist’! (more…)

One thing that interests Rosalynde about a 19th-century Hawaiian brother’s remark on the temple garment is that, while it is something worn individually, “he seems to understand the garment as having a collective effect on a ‘people.’ ” This gets to the heart of what the temple is all about. (more…)

A few days ago I ran across a quote from Nibley in “Prophets and Ritual,” in The World and the Prophets (Vol. 3 of his collected works, an enjoyably readable volume consisting of a series of radio addresses), that I find interesting in light of my recent post on Freemasonry. (more…)

Michael McBride’s swan song at Times and Seasons was the sort of delightful light-hearted fare that deserves to be followed by some really serious entertainment. (Upon reflection I realized that there was much more to say beyond my brief initial response.) Following the traditionally slippery methodology of creation myths by which we humans explain ourselves to ourselves, let’s throw caution to the wind and dispense with theoretical and evidentiary rigor in order to gain access to deep and important truths—in this case, by spinning some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories about women’s tastes in men’s hair length.

As the pictured examples demonstrate, Sister McBride is not alone in liking longish hair on men. (more…)