Critiques of Church leadership

[Archaea]

One aspect of Church intellectualism is the tendency to critique leadership, past events, but I see very little Church intellectualism which tends to just expand knowledge.

In areas of science, scholars and academics sometimes are simply curious and stumble upon something interesting, and pursue it to the end.

I have a passing interest in Church history, though it doesn't strengthen or weaken my testimony. Nonetheless, Church intellectuals or "liberals" is almost always tantamount to "critic". Why?

I suppose one might argue that an intellectual who is mostly supportive is very as an apologist. But a true apologist doesn't usually add, they just support.

Where is the field of positive intellectualism?

If we read our religion threads, a large number are based on weird things or what we "intellecutally more moral or superior to the brethren with priesthood authority" see clearly are the mistakes of the past.

What is it in human nature that automatically judges an institution run by men as inferior to our current thoughts?

Why do we refuse to look at the events in terms of the historical frame?

Again, why are we so quick to condemn our past or current leaders?

I have done so, hopefully not too often, but I wonder. I've seen in part the work that these men perform, mostly selflessly and endlessly. It seems we are quick to judge and slow to praise.

[MikeWaters]

we long for the mythic, superior, past.

Atlantis.

[Archaea]

The past was always flawed, but some people achieved marvelous things, despite limitations and flaws.

Where are our forward thinkers?

Where are our inventors?

We dwell on minutae without pausing to see what people were overcoming.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The past was always flawed, but some people achieved marvelous things, despite limitations and flaws.

Where are our forward thinkers?

Where are our inventors?

We dwell on minutae without pausing to see what people were overcoming.

Doesn't the leadership say that it is not for the members to look beyond the mark? The basics are there. What are you talking about?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Robin

Doesn't the leadership say that it is not for the members to look beyond the mark? The basics are there. What are you talking about?

Your comment makes no sense.

Leadership encourages us the strive to be everything we can become; seek out education, acquire, learn and earn.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Robin

Doesn't the leadership say that it is not for the members to look beyond the mark? The basics are there. What are you talking about?

Yes it does.

We are told to trust in the apostles, look to them for doctrine, look to them for the trails to walk, look to them how to run your lives, look to them when doubts arrise.

We are told that the leadereship will not lead us astray, that the Lord will not allow a man in apostacy lead the church astray. We essentially are told to trust in the flesh, to trust the carnal man, to put off the spiritual oneness we can create with God. What happens is that church cultures creates a bunch of spiritual addicts, where they depend completely on the church approved drugs handed out far too infrequently.

Some people find the inklings of this oneness in the more open, frank, and frequent discussions of past prophets, apostles, etc, and get frustrated that the current church differs so greatly from a more 'pure' form of the gospel.

Some intellectuals find that in our church they have no positive, church sponsored or endorsed outlets. They are told that if they search for the meat that milk is all they need. They are told that if they discuss the 'weirder' things of the gospel that their plight is unimportant and to not worry about it. They are told to simply move past their perceived 'inconsistenecies,' and thusly creates a schism between them and the leadership of the church.

[Goatnapper'96]

Dynamic thought does not happen in a vacuum. However, most institutions that seek to inspire dynamic thought are not particularly enamored with or interested in the principles and concepts to which the LDS Church is adamant. The result is that not a great deal of mormons are exposed to dynamic thought, either because they choose to avoid these types of institutions or locations where that type of thought and training is prevalent or if they are there the training rarely focusses upon supporting what they hold spiritually dear, and taught how to channelize that ability and interest. BYU will never be known for great philosophy.

Additionally, I think our world today spends more time being critical of leaders or those considered to be great. I think the trend of questioning leaders instead of dynamic thought and or self-improvement is just not a trend organic to mormons. Society is little more than a bucket of crabs. Why should mormons be any different?

[mpfunk]

I'm critical of church leaders for not letting me go to strip clubs to convert the strippers.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

I'm critical of church leaders for not letting me go to strip clubs to convert the strippers.

You can always tell who the converted strippers are. They're the ones who pay their tithing with one-dollar bills.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

One aspect of Church intellectualism is the tendency to critique leadership, past events, but I see very little Church intellectualism which tends to just expand knowledge.

In areas of science, scholars and academics sometimes are simply curious and stumble upon something interesting, and pursue it to the end.

I have a passing interest in Church history, though it doesn't strengthen or weaken my testimony. Nonetheless, Church intellectuals or "liberals" is almost always tantamount to "critic". Why?

I suppose one might argue that an intellectual who is mostly supportive is very as an apologist. But a true apologist doesn't usually add, they just support.

Where is the field of positive intellectualism?

If we read our religion threads, a large number are based on weird things or what we "intellecutally more moral or superior to the brethren with priesthood authority" see clearly are the mistakes of the past.

What is it in human nature that automatically judges an institution run by men as inferior to our current thoughts?

Why do we refuse to look at the events in terms of the historical frame?

Again, why are we so quick to condemn our past or current leaders?

I have done so, hopefully not too often, but I wonder. I've seen in part the work that these men perform, mostly selflessly and endlessly. It seems we are quick to judge and slow to praise.

For someone as smart as you are, using such large words, I have never seen such crazy grammar. I have no idea what you are saying. The heading in the thread makes me think it has something to do with following church leaders. I agree we should follow them.