The Mormon Intellectuals’ Trojan Horses

[The Folk Prophet]

Hopefully, that statement doesn't count as overemphasizing personal revelation.

 

Haha.

[prisonchaplain]

I find nothing to disagree with in Traveler's words.  As for intellectualism, King Solomon pursued in rigoriously.  His conclusion is that the purpose of humanity is to love God and keep his commands.  That's some profundly intellectual truth right there.

[The Folk Prophet]

I find nothing to disagree with in Traveler's words.  As for intellectualism, King Solomon pursued in rigoriously.  His conclusion is that the purpose of humanity is to love God and keep his commands.  That's some profundly intellectual truth right there.

 

It doesn't take intellectualism to come to that conclusion though. God pretty much laid it out for us. :)

 

(Side note: Solomon ended up turning away from God, of course, and disobeying him, so perhaps not the best example of what to be and do in life.)

[prisonchaplain]

Folk Prophet, Solomon might be a perfect example.  Intellectually, he found the meaning of life.  He held the answer, and was cognitively satisfied.  Yet, he fell away from the grace of it.  What an appropriate warning to most of us, who count ourselves amongst the household of faith.  Just because we know is not guarantee that we will remain.

[The Folk Prophet]

Folk Prophet, Solomon might be a perfect example.  Intellectually, he found the meaning of life.  He held the answer, and was cognitively satisfied.  Yet, he fell away from the grace of it.  What an appropriate warning to most of us, who count ourselves amongst the household of faith.  Just because we know is not guarantee that we will remain.

 

We're not disagreeing. You're just leaving off the "of what to be and do in life" part. And, as all things, it's not black and white. Solomon set some good examples and some bad. My point was simply--and I think this the key point--the wisdom of Solomon was insufficient. As is the wisdom of intellectuals. We must not fall away from the grace of it, as you put it.

[Suzie]

In my opinion, we have been blessed with certain faculties for a purpose which is to prayerfully study, analyze, dissect if necessary and come to our own conclusions after much analysis and prayer. It is a combination of both, study and faith.

 

When we talk about Mormon intellectuals (generally speaking) we seem to assume that the persons in this group only believe what sciences such as Psychology, Sociology or Philosophy has to say about certain issues and they disregard completely the Scriptures. It is not so. Real intellectuals use a combination of both.

 

The article is very generic.

 

Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation? One can say that those against Mormon Intellectualism overemphasize that once a General Authority has spoken, the discussion is over and we shouldn't question at all their words.

 

Overemphasizing the importance of "Thus said the Lord"? One can say that those against Mormon Intellectualism overemphasize that once a General Authority has spoken, he speaks for the Lord.

 

Overemphasizing the importance of Church history? One can say that those against Mormon Intellectualism overemphasize that when you are studying certain topics about Church history, you are given a warning that you are in the road towards Apostasy because of course, you cannot be a good member in good standing and study the good and the ugly in Church history. The best part is when you discuss a certain topic in Church history and you are given raised eyebrows and suspicious looks and someone asks: Have you been reading Anti-Mormon literature?

 

Overemphasizing the fallibility of Prophets? One can say that reminding ourselves the responsibility to pray and seek confirmation from the Holy Spirit after hearing the words of the Prophet it is vital to our eternal/spiritual journey.

 

In conclusion, I believe we can achieve a balance in both. One OR the other isn't a solution. One OR the other does not demonstrate "greater" faith or "greater" understanding. We aren't a cult, we are Christ's Church.

[The Folk Prophet]

The point of the article was that "intellectuals" embrace the full concept of prophesy but deny the full concept of priesthood. Pointing out that others have messed up attitudes does not negate the point. Just because some fall short of the mark doesn't have any bearing on the fact that others look beyond it.

[Suzie]

The point of the article was that "intellectuals" embrace the full concept of prophesy but deny the full concept of priesthood. Pointing out that others have messed up attitudes does not negate the point. Just because some fall short of the mark doesn't have any bearing on the fact that others look beyond it.

 

1. How exactly intellectuals deny the full concept of the Priesthood? (if you believe so, I would be interested in reading your opinion if you do not mind sharing)

 

2. If we believe as you said that some fall short of the mark, then we can say that some also do not look beyond it. The problem seem to lie in the generalization.

[The Folk Prophet]

1. How exactly intellectuals deny the full concept of the Priesthood? (if you believe so, I would be interested in reading your opinion if you do not mind sharing).

 

It was the point of the article, not necessarily my proposition, though it does make sense to me. The article used the term priesthood specifically as the authorized organization of the church. So the intellectual (as the term was used in the article) likes to put themselves equal to the leaders of the church based on the equal ability to receive prophesy, but fail to recognize that they are not equal to the leaders of the church because of the priesthood order (the authority).

 

I do not believe this is universal of all intellectualism. I consider myself an intellectual. But I do think it is a common failing of the intellectual approach and the peer-review approach to the gospel.

 

 

2. If we believe as you said that some fall short of the mark, then we can say that some also do not look beyond it. The problem seem to lie in the generalization.

 

Yes. I do not think it valid to say that all intellectuals look beyond the mark.

[Traveler]

The greatest intellectual I have encountered associated to LDS doctrine is Jesus the Christ. Unfortunately in all my studies of him I have encountered only one short document that could possibly be associated with him as an autograph. I believe that this deserves a short explanation before continuing.

There are two kinds of documents that are considered original documents. The first kind is called an autograph. These are documents written and composed by the originating source. It should be noted that a direct copy of the original, without commentary or translation is considered an original autograph even if it has minor corrections to correct grammar, spelling or other textual errors. However, to be considered and original autograph it must have been created while the originator was still living and in the same language as his (the origonator's) initial account. A document that includes translation (language change) or any literally corrections, commentary, editor, abridgement, or explanation written at the time and place within the culture of the source is called an original autogram. All other documents are considered copies or commentaries and are not considered actual originals. Also note that there are few original copies of scripture in Jewish or Christian literature or the LDS standards works. The closest we have in LDS literature is the Doctrine and Covenants and the published or recorded conference talks. One final note before continuing – I do not accept any church as a true church that does not have access to original source material. Not just among some component of clergy but available to all – This is why I believe prophets are an accentual element of the “True Church”.

Because of the lack of original documents I have often wondered from where one can get true and correct information in order to make an accurate assessment of original intent –specifically concerning the Christ. Joseph Smith made an incredible observation while still in his youth concerning religion. That is – with so many experts and studied theologians coming to so vast and various conclusions and the fact that there are precious little original source in religion – how can any individual come to any accurate and reasonable conclusion concerning their own personal salvation – let alone anyone else’s. This is why I fine the oath and covenant of the Priesthood as written in D&C 84 such a profound witness to the truthfulness of the LDS church.

Thus the access to doctrinal learning is the priesthood. That we may be introduced to ideas by any source – there must be a witness within the priesthood structure before anyone can declare anything to be valid inspiration from G-d. This is to me true intellectualism – the singular witnesses of other non original sources – I see as pseudo intellectualism. If anyone has any other ideas to put forward – I would be most interested to consider.

In quick summary - I can only witness of myself. I find the statement from Christ that the Father bears witness of him to be profound intellectualism. If I speak any truth the Father will bear witness of that truth to anyone seeking truth.