Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I've said this before. The LDS Church is on the wrong side of history because that's what it is, at a cellular level. It sprang up and grew in popularity at the juncture between the late Enlightenment and onset of the modern age. If it's not on the wrong side of history it's nothing. It's laughable that anyone should suggest, for example, that the LDS Church is not a creationist sect. Its romance with the Masons is totally understandable; the Masons represented the start of a move away from the starkness of the Enlightenment; you see this confluence in the pictures by Napoleon's artists in Egypt. Precise, but starting to get abstract at the edges and as time passes. The LDS Church even tried to give new life to an Old Testament outlook of prophets, visions and miracles. the LDS Church grew as part of the Romantic age. Leo Tolstoy admired Joseph Smith because they shared the same nostalgia for belief, for miracles. This is what Harold Bloom is saying in noah's signature, if you decipher the Bloomspeak. It's why so many intellectual or disaffected Mormons are so drawn to postmodernism, the contemporary iteration of Romanticism.
If the LDS Church stops being on the wrong side of history, on that day it will cease to exist. That's what it is, why its followers love it. They don't want to be on the right side of history.
Last time I said this my friend LA Ute told me I'm making a fool of myself here. So if I'm doing that somebody plase confirm and I'll try to stop.
|
I don't think you make a fool of yourself, in fact I might be alone but I find myself being persuaded by your insight. Well maybe not.
I still think you are an asshole, however. You are drawn to postmoderinism, Non-Sequitar is drawn to scantilly clad women with oscillating man made hooters. I think disaffected mormons are quite a diverse group, reflective of the overall religion IMO.
For the record I much rather hang out with Non"bown-bicha-bown-bown"Sequitar.