LDS Anthropologist Daymon Smith......

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

Nice topic!

As you know, I believe we make God (the Divine) in our image. What seems "good" is what we place on God.

Take Abraham... his entire focus toward life was getting stuff... Women, property, land, posterity. God demonstrated his love by giving stuff to people; the wealthy and powerful were obviously the favorite of God. He was willing to kill his son so he could get a reward that again involved stuff and glory.

in my opinion, this is a rather primitive mindset; I think humans were so concerned with survival that blessings from God, or God demonstrating his love equated to stuff to survive. Obviously the people with the most land, animals, women, and wealth had more power. Fine, but we see little in that mindset that most today would consider enlightened or holy or even decent. I sense many people today consider helping others, caring for those who suffer, etc. etc. as more in line with what God wants in humans.

My personal opinion is that the spiritual path involves relinquishing selfishness and moving to a mindset where we expand our concern for our self to others... even strangers (think Good Samaritan).

in my opinion, the LDS church is sort of stuck in the Abrahamic paradigm equating holiness to wealth. I've mentioned this before but the LDS church not only is near obsessed with appearances, power, and authority but they seem to worship those with money. (Ever notice how wealthy and prominent members are treated by the higher ups)?

in my opinion, it seems exactly opposite of the teachings of Jesus, more, the natural sense of spiritual development that releases the ego rather than feeding it.

There you go... LOL!

~td~

[_lostindc]

Jason,

This is a great thread. I have been listening to the podcast the last two days on my commute and I am about to start 4 of 4. Daymon Smith is a fantastic interview. His insights are incredible and he brings unique analysis to the table, something often missed. His compilations and writings on correlation are absolutely haunting. I can feel a schism coming on, meaning that those who can no longer stand correlation will soon break away. In no way can the Church survive utilizing correlation with the current state of information technology. To me, correlation is now a tool to white wash history and a method in which white lies can be perpetuated yet not looked down upon.

[_harmony]

(Ever notice how wealthy and prominent members are treated by the higher ups)?

Ever notice how the weathy (relative to the ward/stake) and prominent members ARE the higher ups?

[_harmony]

I can feel a schism coming on, meaning that those who can no longer stand correlation will soon break away. In no way can the Church survive utilizing correlation with the current state of information technology. To me, correlation is now a tool to white wash history and a method in which white lies can be perpetuated yet not looked down upon.

It will be a very long time before this happens, if ever. For this to happen, the rank and file will have to 1) gain knowledge and 2) demand reform. The former is unlikely and the latter is unheard of in a church full ofmembers that regularly raise their arm to sustain the Brethren. Such wholesale disloyalty will never occur, short of a huge public scandal within the Brethren.

[_Willy Law]

Darth

Well the corporation sole was a new term for me and I am actually a bit familiar with these things. ...
Written into the corporate by laws though is this. At the presidents death the president of the 12 takes control of the corporation sole and its ownership transfers to him. So succession to the LDS presidency by the senior apostle seems to be for more reasons than that is just the way the Lord wants it.

I have been in several EQ or GD lessons where the instructor or someone in the class will speculate about the next president. They seem to always indicate that the next president is "usually" the senior apostle but it is not required and the Lord can call anyone.
For the church to call someone other than the most senior apostle it would have to change the corporate by laws. How difficult is that and would that have to be a matter of public record?
I love revelation!

[_Jason Bourne]

It will be a very long time before this happens, if ever. For this to happen, the rank and file will have to 1) gain knowledge and 2) demand reform. The former is unlikely and the latter is unheard of in a church full ofmembers that regularly raise their arm to sustain the Brethren. Such wholesale disloyalty will never occur, short of a huge public scandal within the Brethren.

Harm

You need to listen to this podcast. I thought of you quite a bit while I listened. For you especially part 3 and 4.

[_dblagent007]

Also I had not idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a trademark and not a legal entity.

It was once a legal entity but the federal government passed legislation to unincorporate the Church back in the late 1800s as part of its efforts to stop polygamy.

Here is the Supreme Court case that upheld the law unincorporating the Church.

[_dblagent007]

I found it interesting as well as a bit concerting that the person in control, or essentially the only owner of this Corporation Sole is whoever the president of the church is. He owns the corporation sole and it owns the assets. So the president owns the assets.

This means that Thomas Monson is a billionaire. Someone should notify Forbes and the other publishers of annual billionaire lists that the president of the Mormon church should be included. You could provide them with a copy of the by-laws to prove that he does, in fact, own all the Church's assets. I can guarantee you that something will change when the president of church regularly starts appearing on billionaire lists.

[_bcspace]

Interesting how personal opinions and interpretations magically get converted to "doctrines" in the second cast. A whole thought process is invalidated thereby. What a waste of time.

[Guest]

Interesting...it almost looks as if he views this as a devolution. I'll have to listen to the podcast. In any event, to me there is not much discontinuity between corporate LDS of today and theocratic LDS of yesteryear, at least in terms of not being shy about a this-worldly focus. Our church was founded by a prophet, mayor, general, presidential candidate and self coronated king of the world, after all.

One correction. Joseph Smith did not anoint himself king of the world. Rather it was King of Israel on Earth.

Thanks. I was being a bit sensationalistic I suppose. Given Joseph's millennial outlook and his very literal interpretation of "kingdom of God", I don't know if there is much of a difference between the two however. (Yet, when the millennium occurs I think it was assumed Christ would be taking his place).

In any event, while understandably repugnant to many, I believe the general this-worldly focus of the LDS church has been a major strength. It helped it to thrive independently on the inhospitable frontier of a hostile nation and it will likely help it to be a sustainable, viable institution on the global stage into the future. Not to say that changes here and there would not be desirable, but that's inevitable.