Today's Mormonism is being marketed to a different crowd

This was originally a comment on Reddit (/r/lds), but I spent so much time on it, I thought I'd post it here as well.

I think that Mormonism is being "marketed" to a different crowd (for lack of a better word) than it was originally.

The early church appealed to people like Parley P. and Orson Pratt and John A. Widtsoe, who attempted to synthesize its teachings with the (incomplete and often erroneous) scientific understanding of the time. There is some very interesting early writing available on Project Gutenberg by these authors. "Joseph Smith as Scientist" by Widtsoe, for example, attempts to show how Joseph Smith's teachings coincide with the concept of the luminiferous aether. This concept has since been discredited, but I still respect the attempt to try to work within the framework of knowledge they had at the time. These were people who were unsatisfied with popular religious dogma and wanted a theology that was very much based on logic and reason, and Mormonism provided that.

[This Monson quote:]

"Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it."

would come across as extremely condescending and backwards to early members of the church. They were also very interested in the "deep doctrine" discussions that church members today are discouraged from even having; today, we're taught only the most basic of principles, which are reinforced by repetition.

The modern church is more dominated by Ezra Taft Bensons and Boyd K. Packers and Russel M. Nelsons and can be antagonistic toward intellectuals that try to be honest and objective with the facts while balancing them with LDS teachings (like these people and this guy.) As scientific understanding has improved, Mormonism has lost some of its appeal for those who keep up with it, and the message has been gradually retooled for those that do not. Instead of looking for ways that their theology and science coincide, they dismiss or actively mock widely accepted scientific theories. Instead of studying out and thinking critically about criticisms of the church, Monson encourages members to put them aside and ignore them. To me, he's essentially embracing willful ignorance.

There are notable counterexamples of Mormon scientists such as Henry Eyring, but even he in one of his books admits to ignoring many of the teachings of leaders of the church on topics of scientific relevance because "we only have to believe what's true." So, Eyring was a Mormon in spite of some church teachings.

I've attended church around the country. Many times, in many places, I've sat in Sunday school and listened to evolution or the big bang being ridiculed ("some people think we came from monkeys") by people with absolutely no understanding of the theories, or to people questioning the age of the earth, throwing out government or vaccination conspiracy theories, etc. To be fair, some do disagree, but they're vastly outnumbered, and these behaviors are often mirrored and reinforced by church leaders. In my experience, it's these people that make up the core of active church membership today, and I don't think they would have been as comfortable with the early church as they are with the modern.