The LDS Faith is one of simplified faith, for the purposes of promoting faith, not
 

academic or intellectual understanding. This is not to say the proponents of this approach are simple minded, stupid or uneducated, but rather a conscious choice was made some time to avoid the historical Judeo-Christian approach.

As a result in explaining our religious principles, we tend to shove our academics in the background, and press forward. In terms of growth and conversion the approach has worked.

Do you believe we will always favor that approach, or do you believe the Church as it matures will also tend to listen to its scholars in matters of theology?

Discuss if you don't mind. I don't mean this discussion for sarcastic purposes, but I am wondering if you believe we'll continue on the course unchanged, as in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or whether the demands of an increasing world of information will require the Church to take a retooled approach to theological matters.

Well, when God hides up the Gold Plates, doesn't physically reveal Himself to mankind on even a localized, let alone universal basis, and so on and so forth, I think the answer is pretty clear.

When God repeatedly instructs us to pray and receive revelation about the truth of things, again it's pretty clear that academic or intellectual considerations are secondary or tertiary.

I firmly believe this is God's design and not the result of a group of theological traditionalists being overprotective of its doctrine. I don't see any signs that God will suddenly have the development of the doctrine of His church primarily driven by
academia/intellectualism rather than the current established method of revelation through those in authority.

That isn't to say that academic study can't enhance or build upon spiritual understanding, but it isn't going to be the prime mover.

Maybe the paradigm shifts during the Millennium.

We seem to react differently now, but maybe it's just in a slight degree.

When the "discovery" of the genetic question arose, we seemed to inquire from "our" geneticists what it all meant. And if a newer version of the scriptures are released, we might see the deletion of the "principal ancestor" claim, which was added in 1981 and not necessarily part of the original.

I just notice a slight change in tone, but perhaps I err.

Our approach is the right approach.

Historians of Christianity have discovered that theology came on the scene only after revelation was gone (See Roger Olson, The History of Christian Theology).

Some prophets have gone into theologizing (Solomon, Job, Joseph Smith) but that's not the Biblical model.

Has it really continued?

Outside of Joseph Smith, the one revelation by Joseph F. Smith and the SWK revelation, when do we receive theological revelations?

We seem to simply be Bible thumpers without any continuing insights via the revelatory process.

Theology and academic pursuits thereof are obviously very important to you. There is nothing wrong with that. But I imagine you are in a very small minority of Mormons in that way.

The answer to your question is that the reason Joseph Smith had so many revelations was because those plain and precious things needed to be restored. Since his time, there have been things revealed from time to time, but the fulness of the gospel was restored through Joseph Smith.

What we need, is not more revelation, but more understanding (spiritual, not academic) and application of the existing revelations.

I anticipate this answer, but I'm not certain it's very satisfying. Even in giving it, are you satisfied with it? I'm not.

The Book of Mormon in particular is filled with promises that there is more to come. Joseph Smith basically taught that any member of the church could see what he and the twelve had seen, once they were ready for it.

If there aren't more revelations, it is either because God's not talking or because we're not listening. Take your pick.

Or if we're not doing enough with the revelations we already have ... why reveal more?

I think it will continue to change towards a more
 

scholarly approach. Convert baptisms have slowed way down. The church grows more from the births of existing members than through convert baptisms. The LDS church isn't the fastest growing church and it hasn't been for awhile. Speculate all you want on the reason for this, personally I think this is a function of an increasingly skeptical world with access to more information than previous generations. It's easy to listen to what the missionaries say and then google and get the other side. 20 years ago that didn't happen.

Also the church going on the defensive about its founding events has shown some that they believe they do have something to hide. The church used to have an official historical office and regular Joe's could go in and peruse the churches archives until 20 or so years ago. The historical dept. is gone and the archives are closed to all but the most controlled of researchers.

As skepticism (and curiosity) increases I think there will be a demand for more scholarly work to be done.

Seriously how many times can a life long member get excited about sitting through another discussion of how to improve temple attendance. At some point to keep it interesting you've got to dig a little.