Dr. Rodney Stark pt 2

Dr. Stark makes the claim that the reason that Christianity was able to develop Science was because it raised reason to the level of faith and it had the concept of a personal God.  He's 100% right.  He points out that every society has had astrology but only the West developed astronomy, and all societies have alchemy but only the West developed chemistry.  Why is this?  Why did the Greek and Romans not develop science?  They had the engineering skills and knowledge to do so. They could build aqueducts and buildings that could last for millennia.  The Greeks produced thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle but they didn't develop science.  Aristotle was a natural philosopher par excellence.

I've read a number of possible explanations that have tried to explain why the Greeks didn't make leap and the best explanation was economic.  The Greeks knew about the steam engine but didn't develop it because they had slaves and it wasn't economical to develop machines when you had slaves.  They also had the technological skills to make clock works that couldn't be replicated until the fifteenth century, as demonstrated by the Antikythera mechanism.  That makes sense. Humans are almost infinitely flexible and even today can do more than any machine.  What doesn't make sense is why would slavery end?  Every culture has had slavery except one, and that is Christianity which saw all men and women as brothers and sisters.  However, when you see someone as a brother and sister you don't keep them as slaves.  Dr. Stark points out that by the year 1000 slavery had been mostly eradicated in Europe.  That's something that Christianity needed to arrive at because the Bible clearly condones slavery.  Dr. Stark also points out that that era around the year 1000 could be called the clock work era because there were literally thousands of clockwork mills doing all kinds of work, that formerly would have been done by slaves such as grinding grain.

St. Augustine was the first to write my reason informs my faith and that has informed Western culture since the time he wrote it.  Well what was the faith that informed their reason? Faith in a loving Father that created the World for them. A rational Father that made a World according to a plan.  Not one of the willful gods of the Greek Pantheon that could be bargained with according to the gods whims.  Why study something that could be changeable?  Islam took a different route.  They believed, not in a willful God, but in a God that couldn't be limited in any way.  So saying that gravity could act only one way would limit God therefore a Muslim wouldn't even consider studying something like that.

In my reading it seems like all the great monotheist religions reached a point where they have to ask the question about what their philosophers are doing when they try to discover more about God.  Al-Ghazali, a Muslim philosopher, wrote Incoherence of the the Philosophers in which he condemned metaphysics but that then spilled over into all branches of physics and the Muslim culture turned away from science.  Bernard of Clairvaux made much the same arguments at about the same time.  However Christians decided that since God is all powerful and could have made the world in any form the fact that he made it the way that he did says something about God.  Western Christians decided that their were two books the Scriptures and the Book of Life, or nature and that by reading the Book of Life or studying nature you could learn about God.  Robert Boyle, of Boyle's Law fame, felt that experiments in the study of nature were so worthy that they were an acceptable activity for the sabbath.  Johannes Kepler thought that that his studies into the rotations of the planets were a form of praising God.  I could go on, but it was this kind of thinking that led to the development of science only in Western Christianity.  Eastern Christianity took a more mystical turn where they praised God through rites, much like the Muslims did.  That resulted in Peter the Great realizing the West was much more advanced than Russia and him trying to force Russia to catch up.  Different mind set, different result.

Dr. Stark made a startling insight, at least to me.  He points out that science was the process of proving hypothesis, and that the whole endeavor of Christian Science should be considered the proving of a meta-hypotheses, which is my word, that there is a loving God, who is our Father, and deals with us in rational ways and we can learn more about Him by studying the world that we live in.  I would say that that is proven.  By science.  And the result is the wonders of technology.

Dr. Stark is also a guest lecturer in China.  He says that the Chinese have told him that they have studied the West and they feel that it is Christianity that caused the West's great scientific and technological advantages.  Obviously Dr. Stark agrees with that.  The interesting thing moving forward will be to see if science has a solid enough foundation and methodology that it can be pursued by atheists without a Christian foundation.  I guess the future will tell us that.

An interesting side note, for me, is that Dr. Stark revealed some of his personal thoughts in a forward of one of his books.  He said that he started his career studying religion as a sociologist as an agnostic at best, but that over the years he's become enough of a non-denominational believer that he felt that he could work for Baylor University, which is a Baptist affiliated university.  I thought that was a great story.

Dr. Rodney Stark pt 1

I first heard of Dr. Stark a few years ago (probably around 20 or so apparently) when he wrote an article that said that Mormonism was possibly a rising new world religion.  Of course that article caused people who were against Mormonism to discount his projections, and Mormons to make a great deal of it.  Dr. Stark put the article in a book called Latter-day Saint Social Life:Social Research on LDS Church and its Memebers.  I bought the book basically because Dr. Starks article was included with a postscript.  I bought the book because of that.  Dr. Stark's article was interesting but not much else in the book was.  (By the way it looks like it's now online if anyone is interested.)  Dr. Stark in his postscript talks about how he is aware of people who were critical of his methodology, he covers many of the problems and handles them.  Basically he says that he stands by his statements and projections and thinks the Mormon Church will continue to meet them.  In fact in the year that he wrote the postscript 1994 the church growth was 10% above his high projection.  In other words the church was well on the way to being 256,000,000 members by 2080.

A few years ago I was on Amazon and discovered that Dr. Stark has written a number of books, as all good academicians should.  One was called "God's Battalions."  Luckily I was able to find that book in the library.  It was a good book.  Dr. Stark debunked a bunch of ideas about the Crusades, such as that it was not a chance for excess sons of the nobility to go to the Middle East and come back rich.  In fact most families that sent people to the east at a great cost to the families.  In fact he talks about one family that had to mortgage its land.  It was very interesting and eye opening.  Some of the stuff that he talked about were comments that came from Muslims that were under the Crusaders who wrote that things were better under the Crusaders than under Muslims.  I later listened to a set of lectures on the Crusades from the Great Courses.  Nothing in the lectures disputed what was said and much of what was said reinforced what was said by Dr. Stark.  This has really shown to me that any event in history has two sides to it.  Now I'm embarrassed to admit that I've always thought the crusades were an assault on the Moslems by the Christians.  In fact at one time I heard a General Authority say something about Islam that I disagreed with because I'd been brainwashed, and I thought the GA was misinformed.

After reading that book I decided that I needed to read more of what Dr. Stark had to say.  He has a Trilogy consisting of "For the Glory of God", "The One True God" and "The Victory of Reason."  I read them, and they were interesting.  In one of those books he talks about how at one time sociologists thought that they could learn about ancient religious beliefs by studying very primitive peoples religions.  People like the aborigines of Australia.  Unfortunately instead of finding animistic beliefs like projected in "The Golden Bough" they found very sophisticated beliefs about a Monotheistic God, and so they dropped that source of study.  So actually Polytheism is a digression from Monotheism not a progression from animism or spiritualism.  

I do know in his book One True God he talked about the different monotheistic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  This was the first real introduction to Islam that I'd ever had.  He talked about Mohammad as bandit and murderer, and said that Muslims don't shy away from any of these stories about Mohammed but celebrate them.  Only Western Apologists try to cover up for Mohammed and try to portray him as a religious person in the Western tradition.  That was eye opening for me, I'd never heard anyone talk about Mohammed that way before.  I did some research on my own, and turns out everything Dr. Stark said about Mohammed was true.  He did lead caravan raids.  He did massacre people.  He did marry women on the same day he'd killed their husbands.  He was a very bad person by Christian standards, and Muslims accept this.  The scary thing is they consider Mohammed as the perfect man worthy of emulation in every way.

One thing that Dr. Stark mentioned in these books is that Christianity developed capitalism and science.  He mentioned that the monasteries almost had to develop capitalism as a response for all the capitol they were amassing.  He talked about some of these things, and was going to develop them in the final book The Victory of Reason.  I didn't read the final book then because the library didn't have it.  As I thought about what he said i could see the truth of it and thought a lot about it.  In fact I thought about it so much that I emailed Dr. Stark and said that I agreed with his ideas about Christianity and that I thought it would only be Western Christianity that would have led to Science and Capitalism that Eastern Christianity would not have.  He actually emailed me back and said that he agreed with me.  I emailed him again and he didn't email me back.  He lives in Corrales during the summer and I think I wrote that I lived near him so he probably thought that I was stalking him.

The Great and Abominable Church Part 1

For years I’ve wondered about the identity of the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, or the Church of the Devil.  I think they’re the same.  It says in D&C 18:20 “Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.”  So if there is a Church of the Devil, what is it and how do we know what it is?

I’ve asked this question, and I’ve received the stock answer that apparently comes from Eld. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” that says it’s “everything which fight against the testimony of Jesus Christ”.  Of course it used to say that it was the Catholic Church which is what I pretty much believed when I was on my mission. 

I now believe that the Church of the Devil is the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil that is described in Nephi’s vision of the tree of life, or more accurately Nephi’s vision which interpreted his father’s vision of the Tree of Life because is seems to me that Nephi’s vision goes far beyond Lehi’s vision. 

1 Nep 1

1. And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.
2. And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
3. And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was founder of it.
4. And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
5. And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined lined, and the precious clotthing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
6. And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

1. And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
2. Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
3. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
4. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
5. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken aways from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

These two sets of scriptures give a description and a time frame for when it was founded.  This church is founded among the nations of the Gentiles (1 Nep 14:4).  This is interesting because Nephi doesn’t mention this Church in the destruction of his brethren’s people in the destruction of his brethren’s people.  He specifically says that they were destroyed because of

1. And the mists of darkness are the temptations of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost
2. And the mists of darkness are themtation of the devil, which blindeth the eyes, and hardeneth the hearts of the children of men, and leadeth them away into broad roads, that they perish and are lost.

I wouldn’t say that those things that destroyed the Nephite and Lamanite cultures wouldn’t also be part of the Great and Abominable Church, but Nephi seems to be describing something else.  So it’s formed among them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.” (1 Nep 14:5)

I used to see the medieval Catholic Church as this organization, however I don’t know of a European organization that did all of those things.  For example the Catholic Church never had the power to slay anyone.  If the Catholic Church found a person to be a heretic they turned them over to the secular authority to slay them.  The Catholic Church might have done all those other things there described, but so did secular authorities as well.

Also this Church sought after “gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing: and I saw many harlots.” (1 Nep 14:7-8).  Again it can be said by anyone that knows of the history of the medieval Catholic Church know that it did seek after these things, however it was not the only organization that did so or does so.

It also says that the reason that the Church did thes was because of the praise of the world. (1Nep 14:9)

1 Nep 14:23-28 gives us another thing that the Great and Abominable Church does, and a time frame by when it had to have been formed.  Verse 23 is talking about the Old Testament that is had among the Gentiles and is similar to the Brass Plates thought they are not as extensive, they do contain the covenants of the Lord and are of great worth to the Gentiles.  Verses 24 and 25 say that this book goes forth in purity from the Jew to the gentile, and it contains the fullness of the gospel.

Verse 26 starts to talk about how the testimony of the apostles goes forth, and then the formation of the Great and Abominable Church which has “taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord”.  So the first thing that this Church does is change the teachings about the gospel and the covenants that go with it.  Verse 27 explains why they’ve done “this that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.”

Verse 28 then explains that after this is done the Church then alters the book that has gone forth from the Jews.  I think that it’s talking about both the Old Testament and the New Testament.  This had to have happened during the 2nd Century because after this all evidence seems to indicate that the Old and New Testaments were pretty much fixed.  The Catholic Church could not have done this because Catholic Church did not exist at this time.  I’m not sure that it’s possible to tell what the organization is or if it’s even a single organization.  My thought is that it is organized bureaucracy that started to become more prevalent around that time and certain elements of that changed the doctrine and the scriptures.  An ingrained trait of bureaucracy is to protect and sustain itself.  A prefect example of this, I believe is how the civil organization of dioceses, parishes etc. became the Catholic Church’s organization.

A New Blog!

I know that my kids are going to think;  "Oh great Dad has another blog."  And it's true I've been starting and stopping blogs for a few years.  It all started when I had a Wood Badge ticket to help get the scouts better informed.  l started with iWeb and realized that worked OK but then the scouts wouldn't own it so then I started thinking it would be nice if the scouts could start and run a website that the troop could own. There was also a problem with the church not wanting units to have web sites.

So then I started looking for some thing that would let the scouts set up and run a website. I found something called Expression Engine (EE).  That was exciting for me personally but when they upgraded to 2.0 the free version went away and it was too complicated.  Now I don't worry about web sites for the scouts to keep them informed but would like a blog of my own.  During my EE phase I thought it would be nice to have a family site but really with social media and stuff it doesn't really make sense to try do something like that.

Around this time was when the LDS leadership started talking about using the internet to spread the gospel.  In my humility I thought that I would be good at that because I know everything. Just ask me.  So I thought two web sites one that is more personal and one that would explain Mormonism to the world.  Turns out there was some problems with that plan.  First it's hard for me to divide between what is   nonreligious and everything else because religion permeates everything for me and since I'm LDS that means Mormonism.

Second I'm  so dang smart that I couldn't even spell Mormon in the website address correctly.  It was momonthoughts and my daughter Nini had to point that out to me.

So I've just decided to have one blog and combine everything in it since my family are most likely the only people who will probably read it.  Also I've now got Mormon in the address.  I have an internet friend who I met years ago on a Christian message board and his blog is called "Mild Mannered Musigs".  l love alliterations and that made me want a blog called "Mormon Musings".  How about that for a total ripoff?  Well I thought Mormon Meditations was pretty good but that was taken as was Mormon Musings and Mormon Thoughts and finally I hit on Mormon Rumination's and that was available.  It's not an alliteration but it has a lot of m and n sounds going on and that's pretty close.