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

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

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.

Mmmm, I'm not sure it's so simple. The world Joseph Smith lived in and the world he expected it to become (and the church he built as a result) were all very different from today. Smith was clearly constructing a Zion society preparatory to the 2nd coming of Jesus, and it appears he expected it to happen sooner rather than later.

The church has not just "abandoned" intellectualism ... it has divested itself in many different ways from all sorts of temporal endeavors. Smith would probably be surprised to visit a 21st century LDS stake and find no polygamy, no communal living, and no consecration (in the terms he defined it). The conversion from "gather to Zion" to "stay where you are" would likewise probably perplex Brigham Young.

The church has and is adapting to an organization that must provide the saving ordinances and doctrines to multiple millions of people, and multiples of millions yet to come. And it is apparent that the church Jesus eventually visits will look very different from the one Joseph might have first envisioned.

Long story short, the intellectualism of times past doesn't fit with the mission of the modern church. "Leave the intellectualism to the intellectuals and focus instead on things of eternity", seems to be today's guideline. I can't say I disagree with it.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

The church has not just "abandoned" intellectualism ... it has divested itself in many different ways from all sorts of temporal endeavors. Smith would probably be surprised to visit a 21st century LDS stake and find no polygamy, no communal living, and no consecration (in the terms he defined it). The conversion from "gather to Zion" to "stay where you are" would likewise probably perplex Brigham Young.

The church has and is adapting to an organization that must provide the saving ordinances and doctrines to multiple millions of people, and multiples of millions yet to come. And it is apparent that the church Jesus eventually visits will look very different from the one Joseph might have first envisioned.

Long story short, the intellectualism of times past doesn't fit with the mission of the modern church. "Leave the intellectualism to the intellectuals and focus instead on things of eternity", seems to be today's guideline. I can't say I disagree with it.

I would be fine with this, if I felt it to be the LDS church's true position. If, indeed, the LDS church has divested itself from temporal endeavors, why in the world does it continue to run multiple multi-million dollar businesses and own and administer several colleges and universities? If it's left behind the doctrines of gathering Israel and redeeming and building Zion, shouldn't there be some type of announcement?

Sure, the church of Joseph Smith and today's LDS church are very different (they don't even have the same name). But why wouldn't intellectualism "fit with the mission of the modern church"? Have the intellectual teachings/musings of early LDS leaders been discredited? I doubt it, judging by the way LDS venerate their early members.

What I'm so clumsily trying to say is that it's a mixed message. Intellectualism seems to be both okay and not okay - depending on the conclusions. This is antithetical to the rationalistic approach.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Solon

I would be fine with this, if I felt it to be the LDS church's true position. If, indeed, the LDS church has divested itself from temporal endeavors, why in the world does it continue to run multiple multi-million dollar businesses and own and administer several colleges and universities? If it's left behind the doctrines of gathering Israel and redeeming and building Zion, shouldn't there be some type of announcement?

Sure, the church of Joseph Smith and today's LDS church are very different (they don't even have the same name). But why wouldn't intellectualism "fit with the mission of the modern church"? Have the intellectual teachings/musings of early LDS leaders been discredited? I doubt it, judging by the way LDS venerate their early members.

What I'm so clumsily trying to say is that it's a mixed message. Intellectualism seems to be both okay and not okay - depending on the conclusions. This is antithetical to the rationalistic approach.

In other words, to be learned is good, so long as it doesn't cause you to apostatize.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

In other words, to be learned is good, so long as it doesn't cause you to apostatize.

No, to be learned is good so long as you agree with certain leaders who are not as tolerant as the tolerant leaders.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

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.

I got my info from this article:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon254.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I got my info from this article:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon254.html

So one newspaper article makes it true? That's not very thorough. In any given year subject to any given analysis it may or may not be true. It was true for a long time, and then Africa hit, and then it wasn't. To rank it is silly but you're not much of an academic if you're going to rely upon a singl soletary newsarticle.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Seriously how many times can a life long member get excited about sitting through another discussion of how to improve temple attendance. At some point to keep it interesting you've got to dig a little.

Maybe once you get enough members regularly attending the temple, then maybe you're finally in a position to be able to properly "dig a little".

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

I would be fine with this, if I felt it to be the LDS church's true position. If, indeed, the LDS church has divested itself from temporal endeavors, why in the world does it continue to run multiple multi-million dollar businesses and own and administer several colleges and universities? If it's left behind the doctrines of gathering Israel and redeeming and building Zion, shouldn't there be some type of announcement?

Sure, the church of Joseph Smith and today's LDS church are very different (they don't even have the same name). But why wouldn't intellectualism "fit with the mission of the modern church"? Have the intellectual teachings/musings of early LDS leaders been discredited? I doubt it, judging by the way LDS venerate their early members.

What I'm so clumsily trying to say is that it's a mixed message. Intellectualism seems to be both okay and not okay - depending on the conclusions. This is antithetical to the rationalistic approach.

There is no mixed message. They are, as I said, leaving intellectualism to the intellectuals. The administration of colleges and universities indicates that the church greatly values higher education and scholarship.

The difference is, that scholarship is no longer mixed with ecclesiastical preaching.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by All-American

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

My question with this is... people in times past continued to receive revelation and they weren't any better at following the prophets than we are. Is a god dicriminatory? Are we held to a higher standard?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is no mixed message. They are, as I said, leaving intellectualism to the intellectuals. The administration of colleges and universities indicates that the church greatly values higher education and scholarship.

The difference is, that scholarship is no longer mixed with ecclesiastical preaching.

And, as I said, LDS leaders used to be the intellectuals. That, to me, is a change . . . a mixed message, if you will.

Not to mention the way some LDS use intellectual arguments when they're convenient, and then discard them for the non-quantifiable "emotion" argument when they're not.