[Archaea]

One aspect of Church intellectualism is the tendency to critique leadership, past events, but I see very little Church intellectualism which tends to just expand knowledge.

In areas of science, scholars and academics sometimes are simply curious and stumble upon something interesting, and pursue it to the end.

I have a passing interest in Church history, though it doesn't strengthen or weaken my testimony. Nonetheless, Church intellectuals or "liberals" is almost always tantamount to "critic". Why?

I suppose one might argue that an intellectual who is mostly supportive is very as an apologist. But a true apologist doesn't usually add, they just support.

Where is the field of positive intellectualism?

If we read our religion threads, a large number are based on weird things or what we "intellecutally more moral or superior to the brethren with priesthood authority" see clearly are the mistakes of the past.

What is it in human nature that automatically judges an institution run by men as inferior to our current thoughts?

Why do we refuse to look at the events in terms of the historical frame?

Again, why are we so quick to condemn our past or current leaders?

I have done so, hopefully not too often, but I wonder. I've seen in part the work that these men perform, mostly selflessly and endlessly. It seems we are quick to judge and slow to praise.