Critiques of Church leadership

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

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.

Hey, it's called flow of consciousness. We lawyers believe in runons. Don't you?

[SeattleUte]

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.

Take the Church's history of practicing aparthied. You say, "Why can't we put this is in historical context?" By that I assume you mean that mores were different in the past, peope were more ignorant. But for the love of God, these church leaders were supposed to be morally elite. The leaders of the only true church, correct? Aren't we justified in expecting more of them than of George Wallace or Strom Thurmond or Archie Bunker? It's hard for people to swallow that Bruce R. McConkie was just a shallow, pretentious faux intellectual generations behind the times in egalitariansm and tolerance. Bruce R. McConkie was an "apostle," but it turns out he was a very ordinary man, stupendously flawed in character and judgment. In the mid-nineenth century there were abolitionists with the wisdom and moral strength to condemn slavery and racism of any type. One hundred and thirty years later McConkie and other church leaders weren't even where they were then.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Take the Church's history of practicing aparthied. You say, "Why can't we put this is in historical context?" By that I assume you mean that mores were different in the past, peope were more ignorant. But for the love of God, these church leaders were supposed to be morally elite. The leaders of the only true church, correct? Aren't we justified in expecting more of them than of George Wallace or Strom Thurmond or Archie Bunker? It's hard for people to swallow that Bruce R. McConkie was just a shallow, pretentious faux intellectual generations behind the times in egalitariansm and tolerance. Bruce R. McConkie was an "apostle," but it turns out he was a very ordinary man, stupendously flawed in character and judgment. In the mid-nineenth century there were abolitionists with the wisdom and moral strength to condemn slavery and racism of any type. One hundred and thirty years later McConkie and other church leaders weren't even where they were then.

I'm not asking why you as a nonbeliever will judge and condemn; I'm asking why most intellectual efforts today are focused upon condemnation.

Where is the development of our age? Inventing new internet porn?

We are a generation of weak minds, shallow hearts and pagan virtues. Our generations will long be forgotten in the annals of history of a period nonactivity, bickering and backbiting.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Take the Church's history of practicing aparthied. You say, "Why can't we put this is in historical context?" By that I assume you mean that mores were different in the past, peope were more ignorant. But for the love of God, these church leaders were supposed to be morally elite. The leaders of the only true church, correct? Aren't we justified in expecting more of them than of George Wallace or Strom Thurmond or Archie Bunker? It's hard for people to swallow that Bruce R. McConkie was just a shallow, pretentious faux intellectual generations behind the times in egalitariansm and tolerance. Bruce R. McConkie was an "apostle," but it turns out he was a very ordinary man, stupendously flawed in character and judgment. In the mid-nineenth century there were abolitionists with the wisdom and moral strength to condemn slavery and racism of any type. One hundred and thirty years later McConkie and other church leaders weren't even where they were then.

You make it sound like McConkie was pro-slavery. Yes he had his flaws (just like us or any other apostle in this generation or before) but he wasnt a member of the ku klux klan for cripes sake.

Look all through history prophets have had flaws and made mistakes. Jonah wouldn't go to nineveh. Moses didn't circumsise his son. Peter denied knowing Christ. Paul had a fight with his missionary companion and Peter.
Who is to say that McConkie didn't have his punishment from the lord (like moses et all..)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not asking why you as a nonbeliever will judge and condemn; I'm asking why most intellectual efforts today are focused upon condemnation.

Where is the development of our age? Inventing new internet porn?

We are a generation of weak minds, shallow hearts and pagan virtues. Our generations will long be forgotten in the annals of history of a period nonactivity, bickering and backbiting.

But I wasn't speaking as a non-believer. I gave McConkie his due as an "apostle" of "the only true church." Clearly I reject that he was any such thing, or that any such thing exists anywhere. I spoke from a thoughtful Mormon's perspective--many of these leaders of "the only true church" are just disapointing. They don't measure up to the claim.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your comment makes no sense.

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

You can't build a house on someone else's property. The right to build is held by the church leaders, and no one else. You are welcome to come up with whatever personal ideas and beliefs you want, to patch up parts of your testimony, but the moment you start spreading your personal beliefs as 'truth' you are on thin ice.

THAT is why people don't do what you are talking about. The culture of the church is FOLLOW THE LEADER.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But I wasn't speaking as a non-believer. I gave McConkie his due as an "apostle" of "the only true church." Clearly I reject that he was any such thing, or that any such thing exists anywhere. I spoke from a thoughtful Mormon's perspective--many of these leaders of "the only true church" are just disapointing. They don't measure up to the claim.

McConkie isn't my favorite past apostle, but you miss my point entirely.

Where are the positive energies of our intellectuals directed? Nowhere.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

McConkie isn't my favorite past apostle, but you miss my point entirely.

Where are the positive energies of our intellectuals directed? Nowhere.

The problem is there are no real Mormon intellectuals... where is there room to be intellectual? There are intellectuals who are also Mormon, but there are no intellectuals who are considered 'intellectual' because of their contribution to Mormon studies, unless you are speaking of intellectualism in Mormon art and letters.

There just isn't any place to get any traction. The leadership claims the sole right to advancing doctrinal understanding... so what are you left with? Archeology? You can look for Mormon ideas in the ruins of the Americas, but approaching historical sites with preconceved ideas isn't exactly intellectually honest.

What are you hoping for?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Robin

The problem is there are no real Mormon intellectuals... where is there room to be intellectual? There are intellectuals who are also Mormon, but there are no intellectuals who are considered 'intellectual' because of their contribution to Mormon studies, unless you are speaking of intellectualism in Mormon art and letters.

There just isn't any place to get any traction. The leadership claims the sole right to advancing doctrinal understanding... so what are you left with? Archeology? You can look for Mormon ideas in the ruins of the Americas, but approaching historical sites with preconceved ideas isn't exactly intellectually honest.

What are you hoping for?

Sweeping generalizations like this don't do much for your credibility, buddy. Not one of your finer moments.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Sweeping generalizations like this don't do much for your credibility, buddy. Not one of your finer moments.

Hey now, I'm a bit out of the loop. Name a Mormon intellectual, and I'll check it out. I have known plenty of intellectual Mormons, but I don't think I have ever met a Mormon intellectual. Help me out here. I'm willing to learn.