The "Great Apostacy" problem

[Archaea]

Nathan der Weise, by Lessing, probably not called that, was a great work on this issue.

It was the parable of the King of the Ring with three sons.

BTW, this thread is interesting, but not having grown up with traditional LDS upbringing, it seems like mischaracterization by all persons.

Do some non-college educated LDS act dismissive toward the "Dark Ages" because of the concept espoused by Talmage?

Of course. Way to knock down a strawman, Seattle.

Do some nonLDS act dismissive toward the Dark Ages? Of Course.

The Great Apostacy only depicts a lack of priesthood authority and a lack of insight on certain liturgical matters, not matters of culture, intellect or science?

The Catholic Church was a great repository for knowledge, while many savage civilian leaders ravaged the European continent. Nonetheless, there were doubtless many, unnoticed advancements in Asia and perhaps in the Americas.

Are we offended that Seattle doesn't believe Christ anything more than a myth? Why? That's his loss, not ours. He's impoverished by it, not we.

Nathan was very wise.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

The difference is obvious and I'm sure an intelligent, well thought out soul such as yourself can figure it out.

If someone believes that the Miracles of Christ are a myth. That what Christ did was a myth they are factually not a Christian. Yeah,,, just because someone happens to be a good person and lives a good life, doesn't make them anymore a Christian than I am a Buddhist.

It's not obvious enough for the majority of the Christian world that doesn't consider us Christian.

Not living according to our standards may not make somebody a Mormon, but I certainly am not audacious enough to try to draw the line between Christian and non-Christian when my own position between the two camps is so heavily disputed.

[Robin]

I think Seattle and I have slightly different problems with the idea of the apostacy.

There are some Mormons who look at something like the radio, or satelite dishes, and they think, 'Golly. Isn't it amazing that the Lord inspired men to invent this great technology for the purpose of broadcasting the message of the prophets to all the world?'

Like the 'satelite dish was invented to broadcast conference' folks, most LDS view everything that was good during the 'apostacy' as the Lord's way of preparing for Joseph Smith and the restoration. Constantly viewing the present as the acme of all moral human development deprives us of the ability to mine the past for truth in a meaningful way. We can't go to MLK to learn something new. LDS generally look for those lessons that reenforce the teachings of the current church, and ignore the rest. By viewing the teachings of the LDS church as the acme of all moral development, it becomes difficult for many to consider moral development BEYOND the precepts of the church. I think that the other thread that talks about future developments in the church, or Waters' imagining the church calling members to adopt many children, are examples of a hunger to live beyond the status quo. Obviously people are not limited to the teachings of the church, but when a person does everything that the church asks him to do (I don't know if that is possible) there isn't much time left in the day to 'think outside the box.'

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Robin

I think Seattle and I have slightly different problems with the idea of the apostacy.

There are some Mormons who look at something like the radio, or satelite dishes, and they think, 'Golly. Isn't it amazing that the Lord inspired men to invent this great technology for the purpose of broadcasting the message of the prophets to all the world?'

Like the 'satelite dish was invented to broadcast conference' folks, most LDS view everything that was good during the 'apostacy' as the Lord's way of preparing for Joseph Smith and the restoration. Constantly viewing the present as the acme of all moral human development deprives us of the ability to mine the past for truth in a meaningful way. We can't go to MLK to learn something new. LDS generally look for those lessons that reenforce the teachings of the current church, and ignore the rest. By viewing the teachings of the LDS church as the acme of all moral development, it becomes difficult for many to consider moral development BEYOND the precepts of the church. I think that the other thread that talks about future developments in the church, or Waters' imagining the church calling members to adopt many children, are examples of a hunger to live beyond the status quo. Obviously people are not limited to the teachings of the church, but when a person does everything that the church asks him to do (I don't know if that is possible) there isn't much time left in the day to 'think outside the box.'

If what you're saying is the Church breeds a chauvinistic attitude toward history I agree with you very much.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If what you're saying is the Church breeds a chauvinistic attitude toward history I agree with you very much.

Yeah, the Church pretty much sucks.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

Yeah, the Church pretty much sucks.

Mainly it's guys like Daniel Peterson who suck. Kick them out and things would improve.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Mainly it's guys like Daniel Peterson who suck. Kick them out and things would improve.

Is this wounded pride spekaing?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If what you're saying is the Church breeds a chauvinistic attitude toward history I agree with you very much.

What's the purpose of a comment such as this?

Everybody has their bent on history, which for you, usually starts with Rome up through the Renaissance and ends at the Enlightenment. Your regard for history focusing upon the accomplishments, ignoring Asia and the like, is very chauvinistic. If the Church fostered that, then I guess you're correct.

At this point, we delve into the meaning of "history".

Your observations seem mostly limited to the Rocky Mountain regions, as I find LDS from other regions of the world, much more cosmopolitan and expansive in their view of "history."

German LDS would not exhibit the tendency of which you speak, as they take pride in the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Reformation.

Asian LDS view it completely differently, as they have almost no knowledge of European "history".

Your comments are rather crude and imprecise.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Is this wounded pride spekaing?

What makes you say that? All that guy cares about is the last word. Ultimately he's going for capillaries. Islam incorporated some Greek ideas; big deal.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What's the purpose of a comment such as this?

Everybody has their bent on history, which for you, usually starts with Rome up through the Renaissance and ends at the Enlightenment. Your regard for history focusing upon the accomplishments, ignoring Asia and the like, is very chauvinistic. If the Church fostered that, then I guess you're correct.

At this point, we delve into the meaning of "history".

Your observations seem mostly limited to the Rocky Mountain regions, as I find LDS from other regions of the world, much more cosmopolitan and expansive in their view of "history."

German LDS would not exhibit the tendency of which you speak, as they take pride in the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Reformation.

Asian LDS view it completely differently, as they have almost no knowledge of European "history".

Your comments are rather crude and imprecise.

You're right. I was talking about Rocky Mountain region folks. I don't think I know any German Mormons. It's still primarily a Rocky Mountain region phenomenon.