The LDS Faith is one of simplified faith, for the purposes of promoting faith, not

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Our approach is the right approach.

Historians of Christianity have discovered that theology came on the scene only after revelation was gone (See Roger Olson, The History of Christian Theology).

Respectfully, I'm not sure historians have been able to pinpoint the departure of revelation. In the first generation of apostles, early Christian leaders had to make decisions on how to best implement Jesus' commands and teachings. Those who wrote the gospels were forced to remember and interpret the words and life of Jesus. Would this not be theology, even before the blatantly philosophical apologia of Justin Martyr in the mid second century?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Well, when God hides up the Gold Plates, doesn't physically reveal Himself to mankind on even a localized, let alone universal basis, and so on and so forth, I think the answer is pretty clear.

When God repeatedly instructs us to pray and receive revelation about the truth of things, again it's pretty clear that academic or intellectual considerations are secondary or tertiary.

I firmly believe this is God's design and not the result of a group of theological traditionalists being overprotective of its doctrine. I don't see any signs that God will suddenly have the development of the doctrine of His church primarily driven by
academia/intellectualism rather than the current established method of revelation through those in authority.

That isn't to say that academic study can't enhance or build upon spiritual understanding, but it isn't going to be the prime mover.

Maybe the paradigm shifts during the Millennium.

While I don't doubt that what you describe is the contemporary mindset, many intellectuals feel that the LDS church has shifted away from initially academic/intellectual roots. Indeed, the old-time apostles and GAs were a different breed of intellectuals than those who deliver General Conference talks today (e.g. Orson Pratt's 1849 New Jerusalem pamphlet logically and intellectually lays out the case for the New Jerusalem being built in Missouri.)

It's not just a matter of anti-intellectualism; it's the notion that LDS leaders have abandoned their epistemological foundations for touchy-feely emotionalism. Not that it isn't their prerogative (they are, after all the leaders). It just strikes the intellectually minded as incongruous that a church with deep roots in individualism, millenialism, and intellectual bravado has shifted so far.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I anticipate this answer, but I'm not certain it's very satisfying. Even in giving it, are you satisfied with it? I'm not.

As I said before, you and I are very different in our approach to religion and faith. When I'm satisfied with my own spirituality and implementation of existing commandments, then I "might" start worrying about whether there is anything else coming.

For me, these academic discussions are interesting (like a hobby), but have nothing to do with my faith or lack thereof.

So yes, I'm completely satisfied with that answer.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Or if we're not doing enough with the revelations we already have ... why reveal more?

Precisely. There are lessons to be learned and we aren't listening to what we are already being told.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Precisely. There are lessons to be learned and we aren't listening to what we are already being told.

Let me add my amen to that. It makes no sense to teach someone about orthogonals when they haven't even bothered to do Gaussian elimination first.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let me add my amen to that.

That'll be fine. Go ahead.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

As I said before, you and I are very different in our approach to religion and faith. When I'm satisfied with my own spirituality and implementation of existing commandments, then I "might" start worrying about whether there is anything else coming.

For me, these academic discussions are interesting (like a hobby), but have nothing to do with my faith or lack thereof.

So yes, I'm completely satisfied with that answer.

For me to understand what I don't understand, I first try to understand the parameters. It seems a basic understanding that Mormon theology posits ongoing revelation.

The miraculous revelations occurred during the time of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young bemoaned his lack of visionary insights.

There is also the warning for us to beware if miracles and revelations among us cease.

My question is more about what to anticipate, will we always be the same?

I think not, and Solon's observations are interesting. We've actually moved from a dynamic, faith infused, revelatory body to a static, correlated, administrative body with little or no imagination. Perhaps we don't need imagination or faith.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For me to understand what I don't understand, I first try to understand the parameters. It seems a basic understanding that Mormon theology posits ongoing revelation.

The miraculous revelations occurred during the time of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young bemoaned his lack of visionary insights.

There is also the warning for us to beware if miracles and revelations among us cease.

My question is more about what to anticipate, will we always be the same?

I think not, and Solon's observations are interesting. We've actually moved from a dynamic, faith infused, revelatory body to a static, correlated, administrative body with little or no imagination. Perhaps we don't need imagination or faith.

There has clearly been a decrease in the amount of material coming from God to Prophet to Church via "thus saith the LORD" type revelations where we have words that claim to be God's own. Pretty much undeniable here.

Allow me to offer this perspective. The argument was made that once the church was fully restored, these kinds of revelations were not as necessary. As Arch notes, for many, that doesn't feel right. The need for constant guidance is testified to by the mere existence of men whom we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I do not believe that we have reached a point where we have enough of God's word to be able to live our lives in accordance with his will; I don't know that we will ever reach that point.

I think a big reason that we don't get verbatim revelations from God via the prophet is because of the changing role of the prophet in the dispensation of the fullness of times. In Israel, there was a hard and fast barrier between God and man, symbolically traversed on only one occasion each year (Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement) by the High Priest, who represented the people and/or Christ. Furthermore, communication with God to His people was based on a hierarchical system. Look at 1 Nephi 1: the Father charges the Son, who sends his Apostles, who give man his duties (and notice, the chiefest of them is the main actor). That hierarchy should be VERY familiar to endowed members of the church.

One of Joseph Smith's missions was to remove the barrier between God and man. This not only meant removing the effects of the apostasy, but also restoring those ordinances of the priesthood that would bring a man into God's presence. It is true that we are to sustain and follow the prophet; nevertheless, Joseph Smith urged the saints to seek Him for themselves, and restored those ordinances necessary to approach God, enter into His presence, and receive His will for us on our own. We have been given the privelage of passing through the veil on our own, with no intercessory acting on our behalf as in ancient days.

Were I called upon to do so, I could bear testimony of the fact that revelation from God to man is a frequent occurrence, citing specific examples in my life and in the lives of those who have entrusted me with some of their most sacred moments. It is real, it is available, and we have but to seek after it.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

The argument was made that once the church was fully restored, these kinds of revelations were not as necessary. As Arch notes, for many, that doesn't feel right. The need for constant guidance is testified to by the mere existence of men whom we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I do not believe that we have reached a point where we have enough of God's word to be able to live our lives in accordance with his will; I don't know that we will ever reach that point.

Excellent point. I certainly didn't mean to imply that revelation was no longer necessary. Just pointing out why JS had so many. And I think we'd agree that the kind of revelation that is received today is more along the lines of clarification and reconciling modern times with revealed truth, as opposed to revealing new truth.

Originally Posted by All-American

Were I called upon to do so, I could bear testimony of the fact that revelation from God to man is a frequent occurrence, citing specific examples in my life and in the lives of those who have entrusted me with some of their most sacred moments. It is real, it is available, and we have but to seek after it.

This is the crux of my point. What is needed is for all of us (myself as much as anybody) to further develop our personal relationship with God and our ability to receive personal revelation. This is a spiritual quest, not an academic one (or at least not academic alone). If one is studying, and praying about the things learned, seeking enlightment from God via the Holy Ghost, not just from one's own intellect, that is great. But intellectual / academic pursuits without the spiritual is fraught with peril IMO.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Excellent point. I certainly didn't mean to imply that revelation was no longer necessary. Just pointing out why JS had so many. And I think we'd agree that the kind of revelation that is received today is more along the lines of clarification and reconciling modern times with revealed truth, as opposed to revealing new truth.

I figured I would probably end up mischaracterizing somebody's argument. I figured I was justified since I couldn't remember who said it.

Better stated: that the bulk of the the revelations received by Joseph were for the purpose of restoring the church, and the priesthood ordinances which are the culmination of the restoration, is clear. I think the very evident drop-off of published "Thus Saith The Lord" revelations does not indicate a decreased flow of revelation; rather, it is indicative of the fact that communication between God and man has had the middlemen removed to a greater extent than has happened in the history of the world.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

scholarly approach. Convert baptisms have slowed way down. The church grows more from the births of existing members than through convert baptisms. The LDS church isn't the fastest growing church and it hasn't been for awhile. Speculate all you want on the reason for this, personally I think this is a function of an increasingly skeptical world with access to more information than previous generations. It's easy to listen to what the missionaries say and then google and get the other side. 20 years ago that didn't happen.

None of this is true. Convert baptisms still outnumber birth baptisms 3:1. Convert baptisms have been down about 30K per year mostly due to the lack young men mission age. And depending how you break up churches, the Church is still #1 in US growth, ahead of Pentecostals and Catholics.

Demanding churches are growing the fastest because they have the most to offer.