State of the Community

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Mormonism had 3 factors which prevented assimilation:

1. Geographic isolation
2. Cultural isolation (polygamy)
3. Religious isolation (BoM, Joseph Smith, gnosticism)

Well guess what, all three of these isolative factors have withdrawn in force. And really, what we will hear in General Conference is an echo chamber of "we are the truth, we are the truth, we are the truth...." To what purpose?

Now, something we often hear from the apostles is them saying "people think we are a bunch of old fogeys who have lost touch and don't understand what is going on." Apparently this is not something they like to hear. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Perhaps this current course is and will be amazingly effective. I dont' know. Plus, no one with any power to change anything is interested in my opinion. I belong to a church without a suggestion box. So I try not to worry my little brain about it, and will let the big brains do the heavy-lifting.

As I've told you before, you belong to the church with the biggest suggestion box there is. You can explain your ideas to God anytime you like, and if he likes what he hears, he'll say "Friend, go up higher".

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Mormonism had 3 factors which prevented assimilation:

1. Geographic isolation
2. Cultural isolation (polygamy)
3. Religious isolation (BoM, Joseph Smith, gnosticism)

Well guess what, all three of these isolative factors have withdrawn in force. And really, what we will hear in General Conference is an echo chamber of "we are the truth, we are the truth, we are the truth...." To what purpose?

Now, something we often hear from the apostles is them saying "people think we are a bunch of old fogeys who have lost touch and don't understand what is going on." Apparently this is not something they like to hear. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Perhaps this current course is and will be amazingly effective. I dont' know. Plus, no one with any power to change anything is interested in my opinion. I belong to a church without a suggestion box. So I try not to worry my little brain about it, and will let the big brains do the heavy-lifting.

We members face a truly interesting quandry. This organization obviously feeds some of our emotional, perhaps intellectual, social or religious needs. But by virtue of being adults, we can see the fallibility of our mostly well-meaning leaders. Some of what they do will be for our good, and some will not be. But the concept of being an old fogey is something every person fights. When is it true and when is it false?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We members face a truly interesting quandry. This organization obviously feeds some of our emotional, perhaps intellectual, social or religious needs. But by virtue of being adults, we can see the fallibility of our mostly well-meaning leaders. Some of what they do will be for our good, and some will not be. But the concept of being an old fogey is something every person fights. When is it true and when is it false?

I mean if you literally want to get into a debate about who is an "old fogey", this debate played itself out in the case of President Benson.

The church made public claims about his lucidity which his grandson publicly disputed.

I think what the church means is that they are in touch with important things despite their age (with the caveat of good mental/neurological health being present).

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The author is educated and accomplished.


http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?tar...&chapter_id=36



Although none of his formal education focuses upon the areas of his website. Nonetheless, his approach is better than most.

That part about what his high school principal said at his graduation is embarrassing. Or maybe it's a joke -- I'm not sure. Does anybody give a shit what a high school principal had to say about a kid? Why on earth would anybody submit that as part of a resume or bio? That establishes Dr. Stewart as a freak all by itself.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

That part about what his high school principal said at his graduation is embarrassing. Or maybe it's a joke -- I'm not sure. Does anybody give a shit what a high school principal had to say about a kid? Why on earth would anybody submit that as part of a resume or bio? That establishes Dr. Stewart as a freak all by itself.

My high school principal told me at graduation that while he liked me, he was really happy that I wouldn't be returning for the next school year.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

That part about what his high school principal said at his graduation is embarrassing. Or maybe it's a joke -- I'm not sure. Does anybody give a shit what a high school principal had to say about a kid? Why on earth would anybody submit that as part of a resume or bio? That establishes Dr. Stewart as a freak all by itself.

I didn't get that part either, but he is respected in the community as a quality physician and gives back in many venues, outside of the Church, a rarity for many LDS.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I didn't get that part either, but he is respected in the community as a quality physician and gives back in many venues, outside of the Church, a rarity for many LDS.

Yeah he seems like a good guy. I was mostly trying to be funny.

I was in Minsk and Kiev on my mission around the same time he was in St. Petersburg on his mission so we have that in common in addition to both being physicians. Thanks for the link.

Isn't the real answer to why LDS missionary work is increasingly difficult and fruitless very simple, though? I think it is simply that most educated, rational people find the idea that God used golden plates and visions to an American boy in the 1800s in order to restore His only true church an utterly unbelievable concept. I can't say I blame them.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Isn't the real answer to why LDS missionary work is increasingly difficult and fruitless very simple, though? I think it is simply that most educated, rational people find the idea that God used golden plates and visions to an American boy in the 1800s in order to restore His only true church an utterly unbelievable concept. I can't say I blame them.

i.e., prideful rationality.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

i.e., prideful rationality.

Why the need for derogatory explanations? Perhaps, people who are well-fed aren't hungry for what we have to offer?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why the need for derogatory explanations? Perhaps, people who are well-fed aren't hungry for what we have to offer?

Cardiac's explanation was that educated souls find our founding stories ridiculous and unbelievable. You mean they're well-fed on education and so don't hunger for religious stories? I don't buy that at all. The gospel is a well-spring of intellectual adventure. But I sense you're bringing in materialism, which isn't the point. His point is education. But both are cetainly causes for contentment.