The Church on the Wrong Side of History Again

[Archaea]

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.

An interesting post which would require me, who is too lazy to do it, to confirm the timeframes of which you speak.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

An interesting post which would require me, who is too lazy to do it, to confirm the timeframes of which you speak.

Charles Darwin: b February 12, 1809 – d April 19, 1882

Leo Tolstoy: b September 9, 1828 – d November 20, 1910

Frankenstein published: 1831 (kicks off the Romantic age; it had been published anonymously in 1818).

[smokymountainrain]

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.

Anytime I need a small testimony builder, I read a SU post on the subject of religion or the LDS church. Reading that jibberish and realizing that I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, never fails to make me feel better about my beliefs.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

CB has plenty of zealots who "look beyond the mark." They think they know what Church leaders *really* mean and feel they have license to impose their views on others.

I guess I am not bothered if someone thinks they know what the leaders mean. After all, aren't we all trying to figure out what God wants us to do? The problem comes when they inapproproately impose their views on others, as you say.

[Sleeping in EQ]

SU, how do you account for the argument that modernism and postmodernism have run alongside one another all along?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

SU, how do you account for the argument that modernism and postmodernism have run alongside one another all along?

Well, as AA will tell you, modernism began with Darwin, so I don't know if that's exactly true. But it makes sense to me. To every action there's a reaction; opposites attract; opposition in all things; thesis antithesis, that kind of stuff. Modernism and the romantic period overlapped as well. The romantic movements--in which I include postmodernism--are intelligent, highly creative nostalgic responses to the Enlightenment and modernism.

But as I posted yesterday, it's really apples and oranges, and the Enlightenment/modernism is not incompatible with Romaticism/postmodernism. Tolstoy and Cormac McCarthy have lived in both worlds. That's what the latter movements are all about, really, adding back mystery to the nothingness, the ultimate despair, and final annihilation represeneted by science, particularly natural selection. This is the soil of our greatest artistic and philosophical achievements.

Religion is a cruder reaction, but born of similar longing. Facsism is a dark mutation, an evil mutant spawn of religion and Romanticism.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

Anytime I need a small testimony builder, I read a SU post on the subject of religion or the LDS church. Reading that jibberish and realizing that I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, never fails to make me feel better about my beliefs.

It's gibberish. I'm sorry about your education. (Don't take offense; inside joke.)

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's gibberish. I'm sorry about your education. (Don't take offense; inside joke.)

I figured you would know how to spell that word. I do not doubt you are right and I am wrong on that one. I always defer to the expert.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Charles Darwin: b February 12, 1809 – d April 19, 1882

Leo Tolstoy: b September 9, 1828 – d November 20, 1910

Frankenstein published: 1831 (kicks off the Romantic age; it had been published anonymously in 1818).

Before AA jumps all over me, let me correct. Frankenstein was more near the summit rather than the start of the romatic period.

[Cougar Hunter]

http://mormonsfor8.com/

Looks like a gentleman that I taught the discussions to donated $50,000.

How does the downline thing work? What's my cut of that?