NOM

In the first half of the 20th century there seemed to be some progressive thinking in the LDS church. B.H. Roberts, James Talmadge, and others were open to ideas such as evolution, and a broader interpretation of BOM historicity. This was opposed by Joseph Fielding Smith, J. Reuben Clark and others, who dug trenches (wrote books) defending literalism, and messed up church education for the 2nd half of the 20th Century. At least, looking back, it messed up my teachers.
I see, with the new First Presidency, a kind of entrenchment for the 21st century. I hope I'm wrong, for my kids and grandchildren's sake. The process where the church seems to shed rational independent thinking members like a snake sheds its skin, means the Entrenchment wing will always have the advantage of numbers in the contest between truth and authority.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:59 am In the first half of the 20th century there seemed to be some progressive thinking in the LDS church. B.H. Roberts, James Talmadge, and others were open to ideas such as evolution, and a broader interpretation of BOM historicity. This was opposed by Joseph Fielding Smith, J. Reuben Clark and others, who dug trenches (wrote books) defending literalism, and messed up church education for the 2nd half of the 20th Century. At least, looking back, it messed up my teachers.
I see, with the new First Presidency, a kind of entrenchment for the 21st century. I hope I'm wrong, for my kids and grandchildren's sake. The process where the church seems to shed rational independent thinking members like a snake sheds its skin, means the Entrenchment wing will always have the advantage of numbers in the contest between truth and authority.

I think you are right about the entrenchment. LDS leadership--well, they don't receive revelation (we know that at this point)--seeks to maintain whatever 'status quo' they can to keep people moving forward, the church moving forward (all according to their wishes). You have "literalists" as you mentioned above, and probably the biggest thing you have is a law-firm behind the scenes that looks at everything and consults with the leadership to discuss policy.

It would be FASCINATING to hear Nelson testify to the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon. There is a fascinating article on Thoughts on Things and Stuff about the lawsuit in the UK over the Book of Mormon claims, and this is postulated as a reason why no one seems to remember hearing Thomas Monson testify of the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon for over half a decade. Yeh, others have quoted him in the past and so forth--but you didn't hear it come from HIS mouth.

All of this stuff is fascinating. I think the Law Firm in the background is the real leadership frankly.

But it is entrenchment without much retrenchment. It is a moving away from the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith to a new weird kind of ramping up of authority devotion and GA echo-chambering. The church is not doubling down on doctrine and scriptures, it seems to be moving away from those things to put more and more focus on the "arm of flesh" (modern leaders) and finding ways to convince us that we see miracles where there are none and revelation in mundane policy.

While they're at it I would recommend that they change the name of the church to The Church of Jesus Christ of Lowered Expectations.

Let's hurry up and trademark that one, Hagoth. I think we might be able to sell the intellectual property rights to the church when they finally realize that's what they are.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

DPRoberts wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:32 pm Let's hurry up and trademark that one, Hagoth. I think we might be able to sell the intellectual property rights to the church when they finally realize that's what they are.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

I agree.

Entrenchment, it is then. Just another reason not to stick around.