By "extended family" I mean my parents, siblings, and all my siblings' spouses and children.

My sister married a man who doesn't seem like a deep thinker, and his genetic propensity to not think deeply may have been inherited by all his children. My brother married a woman who doesn't seem to be a deep thinker either, and her genetic propensity to not think deeply may also have been inherited by her children.

Mormonism seems to "weed out" the genes required for deep thought. Whenever somebody shows signs of being a deep thinker, he/she is pressured into marriage so his/her genetic propensity to think deeply will be diluted by the genes of his/her spouse, who hopefully will have no tendency to think deeply at all.

The airheads always seem to win.

I may be the only deep thinker in my whole extended family.

By "extended family" I mean my parents, siblings, and all my siblings' spouses and children.

COMMENT: Your insinuation here is questionable at best. First, being a deep thinker arguably has very little to do with one's religious convictions, or lack thereof. One can be a deep-thinking theist or deep-thinking atheist; or a shallow-thinking theist or shallow-thinking atheist. This latter identity is unfortunately demonstrated here on RfM repeatedly!

In short, the fact that you reject Mormonism does not make you a deep thinker; and the fact that your family members continue to accept Mormonism does not make them shallow thinkers. (The same goes for the twin rhetoric that exMormons are 'critical thinkers' while their Mormon counterparts are 'uncritical thinkers. But that's another story.)

Here is a simple, suggested definition of "deep thinker":

Deep thinker: Someone whose thinking extends beyond ('deeper than') the mundane thoughts, desires, and motivations associated with the routine of their daily existence. In other words, a deep thinker engages in philosophical reflection about the metaphysical aspects of life and death, and reality generally.

Now if you have a better definition, I am certainly open to it. But given this definition, it is apparent that one's religious views have little to do with it. Some of the world's deepest thinkers were theists, and some of the world's most strident atheists were (are) shallow and dogmatic ideologues.
____________________________________

"My sister married a man who doesn't seem like a deep thinker, and his genetic propensity to not think deeply may have been inherited by all his children. My brother married a woman who doesn't seem to be a deep thinker either, and her genetic propensity to not think deeply may also have been inherited by her children."

COMMENT: Oh, that damned non-deep-thinking (shallow thinking) gene! How insidious its spread across the population. I think it must be in league with the 'God gene' conspiring together to make us all believers. God help us. And where are the Darwinists to explain to us that non-deep-thinking (shallow-thinking) God beliefs must have a survival advantage. :-)
_________________________________________

"Mormonism seems to "weed out" the genes required for deep thought. Whenever somebody shows signs of being a deep thinker, he/she is pressured into marriage so his/her genetic propensity to think deeply will be diluted by the genes of his/her spouse, who hopefully will have no tendency to think deeply at all.

COMMENT: Oh yes. Mormonism secretly infects our DNA "weeding out" our rational, deep-thinking genes and replacing them with their preferred shallow thinking genes. There is something paranormal going on here. Very deep!
__________________________________________

In any event, you get the idea. Somehow it would seem that any person challenging shallow-thinking of others, particularly their own family members, should at least get their own scientific facts right.

Second, merely rejecting Mormonism or religion; and/or reading a popular book on the 'irrationality' of religion; and/or watching a TED-talk or other YouTube lecture denying God or free will, and thereby being 'inspired;' or, for that matter, securing a PhD in physics, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, or any other -ology, (or JD!) DOES NOT MAKE YOU A DEEP THINKER. Being a 'deep thinker' actually requires that you take theism (and atheism) seriously, and not dismissively. It is hard work!

Deep thinking is a state of being where people can concentrate uninterrupted to find creative or outside-the-box solutions. It's a process where people can open their minds to new possibilities and work through different scenarios and perspectives.

I contend that Mormons and other cultists are incapable of deep thinking. The key words are "out-of-the-box solutions" The prophet has spoken, and his words have boxed in the thoughts of his followers. Religious adherence prohibits thinking outside that box. No deep thoughts allowed.

Absolutely!

"Deep thinking is a state of being where people can concentrate uninterrupted to find creative or outside-the-box solutions. It's a process where people can open their minds to new possibilities and work through different scenarios and perspectives."

COMMENT: You are, of course, welcome to your own definition.
__________________________________________________

I contend that Mormons and other cultists are incapable of deep thinking. The key words are "out-of-the-box solutions" The prophet has spoken, and his words have boxed in the thoughts of his followers. Religious adherence prohibits thinking outside that box. No deep thoughts allowed.

COMMENT: Do you really think that Mormons in general are "incapable" of deep thinking? Or is it that they simply choose not to, for whatever reason? Does religion *force* people not to think outside of the religion box, or merely discourage it?

Keep in mind that many of us here on RfM were once strong, believing Mormons. Yet, while in that state of belief, we managed to redirect our cognitive abilities to think outside of the Mormon box. Our cognitive abilities did not change. Rather, what changed were our choices--as triggered by new evidence and/or life experiences. It is the same for everyone else. They stay in Mormonism "for whatever reason," but they retain their ability to reconsider if and when they choose to do so.

If you don't read, it's the same as not being capable of reading. Mormons and other cult members have no critical reasoning about their religion, because it's been prohibited. This opens the door for stupid things like health potions and powders. Utah is the fraud capitol of the U.S. because of this.

What I'm saying is that compartmentalized thinking bleeds over into global thinking. That spillover is why Mormons invest in foolish enterprises.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2024 08:52PM by donbagley.

"The prophet has spoken, and his words have boxed in the thoughts of his followers"

Beautifully said and so true. You're a great writer, Don.

“First, being a deep thinker arguably has very little to do with one's religious convictions, or lack thereof.“

I guess you make a good point, but I kind of think falling for goofy shit and believing nonsense indicates a little bit of a defect in the ability to think deeply. And I don’t mean goofy little shit like don’t cook with olive oil if it’s under 140° or spam is good for your arteries – I’m talking about life purpose and meaning and commitment to silly nonsense.

I don’t mean any offense to goofy fuckers, but just kind of strikes me like that. But only since I was a little kid.

Absolutely. I get it, and agree.

In all my years of participating in Mormonism, I never heard one deep thought. Not one. I have heard of plenty from other, more organized Christian sects, but not among the Mormons. It's more especially true in sects that believe in a formal educational process for the actual leadership of a congregation.

"In all my years of participating in Mormonism, I never heard one deep thought. Not one. I have heard of plenty from other, more organized Christian sects, but not among the Mormons. It's more especially true in sects that believe in a formal educational process for the actual leadership of a congregation."

COMMENT: Well, as they say, perhaps you need to get out more! I have heard many such 'deep' thoughts by many 'deep' Mormon thinkers!

You might want to read Sterling McMurrin's book, although it is of itself a little 'deep.' The book was originally published in 1965, and republished in 2019. McMurrin was one of my mentors at the University of Utah, many, many years ago. We had many 'deep' discussions about Mormon theology, and Mormonism generally.

https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Foundations-Religion-Signature-Classics-ebook/dp/B07TCC7R4D/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2097QPEOMQ7Z1&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.0_qrfJv3lJX70fdJhOW1vjraBkNA3b0NNj7ROLOqVFcb03nUlO3TiPBOvo5ZKVHnuRd5_0AL7qMO4HrrpAAStJ9j6Li9kbOb_ygul8SljfOhWNnnxYGd52BggfA20N-kkwKGtg2_vtXtBi3JGyi3hglUR7b7w8QAQUTR4nc9iO9cbmzoAKZmbf5NFtXw_ht3.QgzT6ex2dTXVTZisO8GX_NENFyzzLVD4wPmCJofQLrM&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+theological+foundations+of+the+mormon+religion&qid=1710521412&s=books&sprefix=The+Theological+Foundation%2Cstripbooks%2C174&sr=1-1

Perhaps you are the one who needs to get out more. You cite one book that was written in 1965. You also cite one situation where a professor at the University of Utah was a deep thinker.

I mentioned that deeper thinking tends to come from theologians who are professionally trained than a lay clergy.

"Perhaps you are the one who needs to get out more. You cite one book that was written in 1965. You also cite one situation where a professor at the University of Utah was a deep thinker."

COMMENT: The McMurrin book was republished in 2019, by popular demand! It has been read by countless Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, who continue to think deeply about the issues raised. I could provide many, many more examples, but after all space is limited.
_____________________________________________

I mentioned that deeper thinking tends to come from theologians who are professionally trained than a lay clergy.

COMMENT: I agree that 'deeper thinking' in theology generally comes mostly from professionally trained theologians or philosophers, rather than lay members. However, in Mormonism there are no, or very few, "professionally trained theologians." As such, most of the deep thinking *does* come from a select group of lay members who generally have other types of degrees, along with regular jobs.

Remember, you said that 'in all your years' you have "never heard one deep thought [from a Mormon]." That tells me that you have not read the literature addressing Mormon theology; nor associated with anyone who thinks deeply about Mormon theology. That is not meant to be a put-down, but just an observational fact drawn from your own statement.

Robert Thomas was my uncle. He wrote the "Out of the Best Books" series which was some years later, quietly buried. There used to be a lot of lip service paid to education, thinking, reading,
and expanding your horizons. That stopped long ago and the antagonism against it started with a heavy emphasis on correlation (another name for message and therefore thought control). I was a child and therefore not exposed to much more than the basics prior to correlation.

And the book you cited was originally published pre-correlation. Just because they republished it later isn't a trend or an example of the norm.

"I guess you make a good point, but I kind of think falling for goofy shit and believing nonsense indicates a little bit of a defect in the ability to think deeply. And I don’t mean goofy little shit like don’t cook with olive oil if it’s under 140° or spam is good for your arteries – I’m talking about life purpose and meaning and commitment to silly nonsense."

COMMENT: Well, your post here is based upon what you call "silly nonsense." That is a highly subjective, not to mention pejorative, characterization that you would have to defend by first identifying what beliefs you deem to be 'silly nonsense' and then defending such a view.

Moreover, when religion is involved, and metaphysics generally, one person's silly nonsense is another person's 'deep thinking.' There are numerous examples of this. Take the belief in a soul and/or life after death. To some, such beliefs are silly nonsense, but to others deep thinking. Whichever conclusion you make, there are "deep" arguments that support the latter preferred religious position, whether you or I accept them or not.
______________________________________________

"I don’t mean any offense to goofy fuckers, but just kind of strikes me like that. But only since I was a little kid."

COMMENT: People who are passively dismissive of all religious or metaphysical beliefs and ideas are in my experience usually ignorant of the basis for such beliefs. As such, the "offense" falls upon them, not the believer.

Here is a real-life example: Consider the following quote, arguing for the view that there is a soul and life after death:

"We are of course far from being able to confirm scientifically the theological world picture, but, it might, I believe, already be possible today to perceive by pure reason (without appealing to the faith in any religion), that the theological worldview is thoroughly compatible with all known data (including the conditions which prevail on our earth). . . . What I call the theological worldview is the idea, that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. Since it [the present life] has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, [it] can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning (reason) is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science."

Now, is the idea expressed here; that is, the reality of life after death, "silly nonsense?" How about the argument from metaphysical meaning and reason that is being made? Is that silly nonsense or deep thinking?

The statement is by one of the greatest mathematicians and 'deep thinkers' of the 20th Century, Kurt Gödel, as quoted in Hao Wang, *Reflections on Kurt Gödel* (p. 216-217)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

or that you learn? My dad was a very deep thinker, as was my mother. And somehow their kids and grandkids (except my daughter) are not mormon.

My dad had a really hard time about the idea I would marry someone gay. He kept asking me if I knew before I married him. I finally told him the leaders told me I had to save him. My dad's first statement was THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY. He said now I understand why you did it as I knew you were too intelligent to marry someone who is gay.

It was deep thinking that got me out. Putting all my experiences together and all the stuff leaders told me and did to me before I married him. Take the stuff I had believed in and then to run into as big of an issue as I ran into in my life. And here it is 2024 and I found out he is gay in 1983 and the church is still clueless about being gay.

I say we're born with it. My father was a shallow, unthinking believer. He tried to force his outlook on me from birth,and he failed. I gave up everything for the freedom to think for myself. I'd do it all over again if I had to.

I have me and one brother. The rest of the family has their thinking done for them.

As a Mormon, I remember hearing the questions the church likes to pretend they answer factually:

Who are we
Why are we here
Where are we going

When I first thought about these questions (as a Mormon) I remember thinking they were soooooo deep. I was glad the church had answers for them so I didn't need to look any further.

When you are told you have the answers at church about "spiritual" things, it doesn't occur to everyone to question them right away. You WANT it to be true. You WANT to think you are God's special pet. You WANT to think you are immortal and going to a swell sugar castle in the sky.

IMO, that is a deterrent to what I would consider deep thinking in certain areas of knowledge. This in turn strengthens cognitive dissonance and the person's ability to wall off protected areas of thought.

Many of us snap out of it. I would not rule out genetic contributing factors for how our personalities might be involved. I think the cultural tendencies are implanted so deeply, it isn't so obvious as we are growing up how much of what we are told deserves scrutiny. Sometimes not appearing to be a "deep thinker" is really denial. There are not always answers to some of the questions we have. Realizing that the adults we loved were actually lying and making things up can be too hard to accept.

As a Mormon, I remember hearing the questions the church likes to pretend they answer factually:

Who are we
Why are we here
Where are we going

When I first thought about these questions (as a Mormon) I remember thinking they were soooooo deep. I was glad the church had answers for them so I didn't need to look any further.

COMMENT: From a psychological and humanistic point of view, these *are* deep questions relating to the ultimate meaning and purpose of life. It is the Mormon answers that are simplistic and shallow, not the questions.

It is worth noting that the inverse attitude is every bit as shallow and simplistic. That is, addressing such questions purely from a biological, organismic standpoint, while thinking that one need not go any further toward seeking understanding as to who we are as human beings.
___________________________________________

Many of us snap out of it.

COMMENT: We do not simply "snap" out of it. It's not a magic or random event that some of us are just fortunate enough to have happen to us. Because we are conscious, cognitive agents, over and above whatever else our biology dictates, we were able to reflect on our beliefs, examine evidence, change our belief systems, and thereby change our lives. Usually, this takes some intellectual effort.

Where is all of this capacity for willful thought and action explained in biology, or science generally? Nothing could be more simplistic and shallower than trying to escape the difficulty of such further *deep* questions by calling such capacities illusory.

Whatever its shallowness, religion at least takes your existential questions, and human responses, seriously, and not dismissively.

    In my era, the three questions began with "Where did we come from?" not "Who are we?"

    I have no idea what the church's current emphasis (if any) is on the Pre-Existence.

    We used to enjoy talking about the Pre-Existence.  There were stories about people who made agreements about meeting up 'down here' and even stories about lovers in the P-E becoming lovers in mortality...very romantic, que no?  

    Was Gladys always on my case in the Pre-Existence... All up in my grill?  Inquiring minds would like to know...

In my era, the three questions began with "Where did we come from?" not "Who are we?"

COMMENT: Remember the beginning of Man's Search for Happiness?" I was so entrenched in that video on my mission I think I still have it memorized after almost 50 years:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=man%27s+search+for+happiness+1964&mid=F6E6BA8238219570276DF6E6BA8238219570276D&FORM=VIRE

___________________________________

I have no idea what the church's current emphasis (if any) is on the Pre-Existence.

COMMENT: Don't forget, it *is* part of the plan of salvation! But at least the pre-existence is over . . . or is it? [Play in your head the Twilight Zone theme song]
____________________________________

We used to enjoy talking about the Pre-Existence. There were stories about people who made agreements about meeting up 'down here' and even stories about lovers in the P-E becoming lovers in mortality...very romantic, que no?

COMMENT: Sure, I remember. Wasn't it a great come-on line when meeting a hot potential *soulmate?"* "I can testify that we met in the pre-existence, and you agreed to be my eternal companion for time and all eternity;" or some such thing. I had a 'friend' that tried that line three times before someone finally bought it.
____________________________________

Was Gladys always on my case in the Pre-Existence... All up in my grill? Inquiring minds would like to know...

COMMENT: You mean and between the two of you continually bantering back and forth about trivial nonsense? Tell me true; was there RfM in the pre-existence? And, God forbid, will there be RfM in the afterlife?

Now you are really scaring me!

[O.K. See, I can be flippant too. Can I now go back to my ole pain-in-the-ass, nick-picky self?] :-)

Sorry, I meant back to my "grandiloquent profundity."

"Profunctity" should be a word...

I've tried pondering in the deep, but I almost drowned in my thoughts. Now I stay in the shallows. It's a yin-yang type thing, providing Mr. Bemis a stark contrast with which to enhance his grandiloquent profundity. I'm glad to do my part.

Meme: "We live in a time when intelligent people are silenced so that stupid people aren't offended."