A great quote from Elder Richards

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The age of innovation and revelation is past.

We have no philosophizers.

We have leaders that inevitably produce nothing but the mindless, simpleton byproduct of groupthink because they are all from the same racial, demographic and geographic substrata.

We have leaders that are more interested in money than saving the lives of homeless men.

Our leaders stress that money is so important that however you acquire it is OK as long as you don't get caught.


It's amazing we haven't imploded into the 21st century version of the Strang-ites.

You're such a whiner, Indy.

[MikeWaters]

I do have to credit whichever GAs that finally put an end to GAs serving on corporate boards.

I just don't see apostles serving on outside non-church corporated boards as in any way, shape, or form congruent with what I think of apostles from the Bible.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

we don't need theologians in the church. we don't need philosophers.

we need revelators.

It's interesting that we view the apostasy as something being present, then very quickly falling from the church. The argument could be applied to the modern church: burst of revelation until Joseph Smith's death, and then very little since then.

I'm not saying that modern apostles aren't revelators. I'm saying the nature and quanity of revelations has appeared to change.

I agree that we need revelators, but isn't it naive to state that revelation results in a vacuum.

Where is the training for revelation?

If you don't understand the revelatory process, how can you become a revelator? As you note, we had a burst of revelations through Joseph Smith and not the same as before.

Linguists and philosophers try to understand the nature of language and the process of knowledge and/or revelation. Without understanding the process, we may lose a lot in the translation.

Maxwell was an educator, as I remember, but last time I looked as Blue K has noted, he's not talking in GC. And btw, he was my favorite speaker for use of language.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I agree that we need revelators, but isn't it naive to state that revelation results in a vacuum.

Where is the training for revelation?

If you don't understand the revelatory process, how can you become a revelator? As you note, we had a burst of revelations through Joseph Smith and not the same as before.

Linguists and philosophers try to understand the nature of language and the process of knowledge and/or revelation. Without understanding the process, we may lose a lot in the translation.

Maxwell was an educator, as I remember, but last time I looked as Blue K has noted, he's not talking in GC. And btw, he was my favorite speaker for use of language.

First off, the dig on Maxwell is weak. The fact he died 2-3 years ago doesn't lesson the fact that he was a legitimate philosopher.

Second, if understanding modern philosophy is a required course in becoming a revelator, count me out. Neither Joseph nor Brigham had any philosophy training, and I'm pretty sure some of the philosophies of the day were the very ideas they were condemning.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

we don't need theologians in the church. we don't need philosophers.

we need revelators.

It's interesting that we view the apostasy as something being present, then very quickly falling from the church. The argument could be applied to the modern church: burst of revelation until Joseph Smith's death, and then very little since then.

I'm not saying that modern apostles aren't revelators. I'm saying the nature and quanity of revelations has appeared to change.

Theologians, philosophers, revelators--they're all welcome as far as I'm concerned. And they can be interconnected to. A person thinking deeply about an issue in a philosophical way can often discover a powerful question on which to seek revelation.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Linguists and philosophers try to understand the nature of language and the process of knowledge and/or revelation. Without understanding the process, we may lose a lot in the translation.

I can understand that argument for historical scriptural exegesis but that's not necessary in order to receive revelation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

First off, the dig on Maxwell is weak. The fact he died 2-3 years ago doesn't lesson the fact that he was a legitimate philosopher.

Second, if understanding modern philosophy is a required course in becoming a revelator, count me out. Neither Joseph nor Brigham had any philosophy training, and I'm pretty sure some of the philosophies of the day were the very ideas they were condemning.

Maxwell was well-read, but I don't consider him a philosopher per se. Truman Madsen is a philosopher and was Maxwell's friend.

Joseph Smith was a classic prophet, in the prophetic sense. He had a theophany, which he reported often. He pursued and romanced philosophies and studies, as shown in the school of the prophets. Gotta go for a moment.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

First off, the dig on Maxwell is weak. The fact he died 2-3 years ago doesn't lesson the fact that he was a legitimate philosopher.

Second, if understanding modern philosophy is a required course in becoming a revelator, count me out. Neither Joseph nor Brigham had any philosophy training, and I'm pretty sure some of the philosophies of the day were the very ideas they were condemning.

I consider Maxwell a quasi-philosopher. He was certainly an arts and letters guy. I miss his wisdom.

Joseph condemned some ideas and readily absorbed others. He was something of a philosophical mag pie. Quinn's book on Mormonism and the Magic World View comes to mind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I consider Maxwell a quasi-philosopher. He was certainly an arts and letters guy. I miss his wisdom.

Joseph condemned some ideas and readily absorbed others. He was something of a philosophical mag pie. Quinn's book on Mormonism and the Magic World View comes to mind.

I would agree with these observations. However, where our arts and letters guys now?

We have CES, businessmen and lawyers. We have a physician and several college administrators.

The education seem mostly angled toward business and administration, which given their heavy administrative load makes a lot of practical sense, but we're losing some of the richness we once enjoyed. Maybe it will even out in the end. However, their circles from which they select will necessarily be the same, so we may be weeding out the thinkers, the arts and letter guys, for the nuts and bolts types.

[MikeWaters]

Our school presidents are GAs and our GAs are school presidents.

I think that's your answer.