Sign in to follow this  
srmaher

Elder Packer Vindicated 21 Years Later

Recommended Posts

What if you don't live in America, Canada has different values then America, the UK has different values, France, Germany, etc...

I agree with them in that I don't believe gender is predetermained in the pre-mortal existance if such a thing exists. While I think the other gender names sound a bit silly, it doesn't bother me at all.

Why should there be a "gender distinction" I certainly don't follow what it means to be a man most of the time, I collect dolls and dislike most sports and have really always been this way. There was no drive for me to like go out hunting or play football. It was never pushed on me I was simply allowed to like what I wanted, and that's what I chose.

What evidence to you have, you claim to have a lot of it...

Being a man doesn't describe what your likes are.   man is one gender and woman another.    Both are needed for procreation.      Gender distinction started on this world with man and woman - Adam and Eve.   Where do people come from?   They aren't brought forth through accident or because of strange combination of genes (where do they come from)   They always were, are and will continue to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for your specific point, which I take to be the idea that we should all aspire to what Mormon's believe to be the highest state, a celestial being, well, there is room to take issue with that. Jesus, famously, sought out sinners.

True; but He was never shy about telling them that they needed to stop sinning.

In my kind of heaven, which is an English public house, on a stormy night, with a log fire, and plenty of good conversation and flowing warm bitter beer, He would be there, guiding the discussion and guarding against prejudice and stereotyped hatreds.

I like the image generally (and I can't even say for sure that there won't be beer there!); but I think He would also be warning against drunkenness and hedonism. There is no sin in heaven--not even the lowest degree thereof. People who refuse to turn from fornication and sodomy now will still have to do it eventually. A person cannot receive and keep divine light, whilst deliberately suppressing his divine nature.

So, I submit, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. We do not all want to be the best. Some of us are content simply to be happy in our own skins, an ambition to which we can all aspire, and should not allow to be removed from us by the judgmental ideas of other people who think they know better than us what we ought to be.

Well, again, this has both political and theological implications; and I won't engage the former at this time. As for the latter: God didn't create us to receive a good reward; He created us to receive the best reward. We may (and ultimately, will) choose for ourselves; but He (or his servants) will never stop reminding us of the purpose of our creation.

As you cogently remind us above, we humans are to some degree still discovering absolute morality--certainly the "whys", and occasionally the "whats" as well. As a third grader I thought I would be perfectly happy to go through life never knowing my multiplication tables. In retrospect, I'm very grateful for a "judgmental" teacher who really DID know, better than me, what I ought to become. "Live and let live" doesn't really apply in a schoolhouse, which is what Mormonism claims this life essentially is.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point. Do not feel that I am attacking you, or your church, with any special venom. I am still in learning mode, a student of the world, and looking to be educated by it. The opinions I put, though, are genuine, in order to discover what responses there may be.

 

As for your specific point, which I take to be the idea that we should all aspire to what Mormon's believe to be the highest state, a celestial being, well, there is room to take issue with that. Jesus, famously, sought out sinners. In my kind of heaven, which is an English public house, on a stormy night, with a log fire, and plenty of good conversation and flowing warm bitter beer, He would be there, guiding the discussion and guarding against prejudice and stereotyped hatreds.

 

So, I submit, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. We do not all want to be the best. Some of us are content simply to be happy in our own skins, an ambition to which we can all aspire, and should not allow to be removed from us by the judgmental ideas of other people who think they know better than us what we ought to be.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Yet even in your (rather charming!) notion of heaven, you imagine Jesus leading us away from some sins--specifically, prejudice and stereotyping. 

 

As JaG pointed out, there cannot be the least degree of sin in heaven.

 

Why would some sins be not allowed but others remain?  Where is the justice in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Urstadt,

 

I am agreed with you about the waning morals point. I do not see how the topmost best of psychology can deal with this. At the end of the day, there is no substitute for virtue, and eudaimonia, or human flourishing, can only be achieved through virtue. That far, at least,  I am a virtue ethicist.

 

As for psychological harms done to the LGBT community, well it strikes me that though the deliverer of the blow might be secular and social, the justifier of that blow is, all too often, religious. Religion, when it preaches condemnation, is a hugely powerful actor, underpinning many seemingly non-religious attitudes. It needs to behave responsibly with its power.

 

As for our discussion, believe me, you are educating me more than I am educating you! I am just a stubborn idiot who refuses to move to point b before point a has been irrefutably proven. I value your input to that process most highly, and I know I would be impoverished had we not met in this cyberspace unreality!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, famously, sought out sinners. In my kind of heaven, which is an English public house, on a stormy night, with a log fire, and plenty of good conversation and flowing warm bitter beer, He would be there, guiding the discussion and guarding against prejudice and stereotyped hatreds.

 

So, I submit, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. We do not all want to be the best. Some of us are content simply to be happy in our own skins, an ambition to which we can all aspire, and should not allow to be removed from us by the judgmental ideas of other people who think they know better than us what we ought to be.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I like your intent, but I have this thought to offer:

 

Shouldn't Heaven be a place of happiness for Jesus as well. His mortal ministry was a rescue mission. Of this period Isaiah said, "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." It is also referred to as the period when he descended below all things. 

 

Now I am not suggesting that Jesus had no joy in His service, because I believe he found it deeply rewarding and satisfying at times, but I also believe he did what he did knowing that it would bring an end to these injustices rather than to continue to guard against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, famously, sought out sinners.

 

There's a reason for that. It certainly wasn't to uphold sin. It is, in fact, the same reason why we send out missionaries all over the world.

 

In my kind of heaven, which is an English public house, on a stormy night, with a log fire, and plenty of good conversation and flowing warm bitter beer, He would be there, guiding the discussion and guarding against prejudice and stereotyped hatreds.

 

I don't recall Jesus visiting Pubs. Let's see...mountains, fishing boats, weddings, homes, fields... Yeah...not remembering the beer halls. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Why would some sins be not allowed but others remain?  Where is the justice in that?

 

Thank you for your kind and gentle response to my heresy.

 

I am just not convinced that all our sins are shriven away, when we die. I suspect that the battle between good and evil will persist, if only to give us some meaningful occupation to continue with, during our eternities.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for psychological harms done to the LGBT community, well it strikes me that though the deliverer of the blow might be secular and social, the justifier of that blow is, all too often, religious. Religion, when it preaches condemnation, is a hugely powerful actor, underpinning many seemingly non-religious attitudes. It needs to behave responsibly with its power.

While there is no doubt that there is some of this definitely happening, I am not so sure we can make this claim universally. When I lived somewhat near San Francisco a number of years ago, I knew a couple of friends who stuck together, in part, because of their shared atheism. They did not share favorable views towards the LGBTQ community. One of them was responsible for bringing physical harm to one of my classmates, and friend, at the power plant behind our junior high school one day after school simply because he professed to be gay.

Additionally, the data coming from the HRC also refutes your claim at a universal level. It does also support your claim in acute, isolated situations. Social psychology and sociology research pinpoints the Western phenomenon called ontological individualism (the idea that we are self-contained individuals, capable of existing entirely in a vacuum) as the culprit for all bigotry, prejudice, persecution, waning morals, and our overall disconnectedness as a society. Ontological individualism has destroyed our sense of community, and that has delivered the under-handed blow of social persecution and injustice way more than any other institution currently found in the west.

More information about this can be found in Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah and associates, The Sources of the Self by Charlse Taylor, The New Golden Rule by A. Etzioni, and the Tao Te Ching.

You mentioned something about being stubborn. We are kindred spirits. :) There are some things that I am too stubborn to change my view on as well (e.g., continental relationality). As such, I will not sit here on my phone and assume I can pursuade you that religion is more of a background issue than you believe it to be. Especially when there have been plenty of cases that support your position. So I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and engage in conversation with me.

As for our discussion, believe me, you are educating me more than I am educating you! I am just a stubborn idiot who refuses to move to point b before point a has been irrefutably proven. I value your input to that process most highly, and I know I would be impoverished had we not met in this cyberspace unreality!

I appreciate that. And I value your input in our ongoing dialogues about these complex, interwoven issues in our society that, the truth be told, don't have simple answers. I like the supplemental contrast your post-Cartesian perspective and my continental relationality perspective creates in our dialogues, and how it adds to them. Edited by Urstadt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just not convinced that all our sins are shriven away, when we die. I suspect that the battle between good and evil will persist, if only to give us some meaningful occupation to continue with, during our eternities.

Your doubt is not exactly misplaced. Joseph Smith said it would take milennia after our resurrections to catch up to Heavenly Father. Plus, for many of us, there will be a time and a season between our death and our resurrection. So, I am on board with you that it is doubtful that we will be resurrected and poof, we are magically caught up to Him. Where I get off the boat is when it is said that we will still be sinning.

If we re-contextualize our existence as beings-always-growing, always flourishing, to use Aristotle's term, and not just sinning or not sinning, then I definitely share your view. We will not be resurrected and poof, we've reached the pinnacle of all growth.

Edited by Urstadt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urstadt

 

The word intellectualism can be used in so many ways. It goes without saying that Mormon theology encourages intellectualism. I don't know about you, but i think Elder Holland, Scott, Nelson, Eyring, and Elder Maxwell fit into the category of intellectuals. 

 

Now, i can't speak for everyone, but I believe the kind of "intellectualism" that we see worshiped in our day (University Professors) is not one that has truth as its highest value, but rather an ideology that is more interested in social justice then pursuing truth. They are more interested in making their students into activists then individuals that can think and reason. In short, the intellectualism of today is anything but that, rather, its a secular ideology with the label, "intellectuals." 

 

I think I have met quite a few people who would take exception to your  second sentence, the one about Mormon theology encouraging intellectualism. I agree. However, the problem with condemning intellectualism without clarification, which is what happens when people quote Elder Packer's talk without any context, is that a lot of Mormons end up thinking that any kind of intellectual thought is not okay. Often we are poorer as a people because of this trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have met quite a few people who would take exception to your  second sentence, the one about Mormon theology encouraging intellectualism. I agree. However, the problem with condemning intellectualism without clarification, which is what happens when people quote Elder Packer's talk without any context, is that a lot of Mormons end up thinking that any kind of intellectual thought is not okay. Often we are poorer as a people because of this trend.

 

Anyone who believes the church discourages intellectual thought is an unthinking half-wit. Study by learning and also by faith is a core tenet of the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and to add to that, intellectual concepts can also strengthen testimony and obedience. I sometimes wonder if intellectualism is merely the scapegoat for apostasy as opposed to the cause of it. Put otherwise, people are already losing faith and don't believe so they turn to intellectual concepts to try justifying their disbelief.

I have even seen a few people be selective with their intellectual pursuits, which is anti-intellectual in it of itself.

Intellectualism, as I understand it, is using pure reason in decision making. It is evil. Aborting a baby because it is not the desired gender or it has a defect such as Down's Syndrome is perfectly acceptable using intellectualism. Faith and intellectualism cannot coexist. They are polar opposites. There is no room for anything but rational thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you cannot assume we are in agreement when I am still seeking a confirming answer to my first question.

From your first post I am lead to understand that you believe that people with same gender desires have absolutely no choice in having the desires; in essence, they are born that way. Is this a correct representation of what you believe?

Well, you cannot assume we are in agreement when I am still seeking a confirming answer to my first question.

From your first post I am lead to understand that you believe that people with same gender desires have absolutely no choice in having the desires; in essence, they are born that way. Is this a correct representation of what you believe?

@ 2RM

Bump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your intent, but I have this thought to offer:

 

Shouldn't Heaven be a place of happiness for Jesus as well. His mortal ministry was a rescue mission...

 

Now I am not suggesting that Jesus had no joy in His service, because I believe he found it deeply rewarding and satisfying at times, but I also believe he did what he did knowing that it would bring an end to these injustices rather than to continue to guard against them.

 

I had to reply to this, though as an aside, rather than a contribution to the main direction of this thread.

 

My reading of scripture is that Jesus was made and born to save souls. Some of us take a long time to discover the niche in life God made us for. Some of us know it all along. Whatever the case, we all are happier fulfilling God's purpose for us, than pursuing worldly gains at each other's expense. It seems Jesus discovered completely His own mission around age thirty. I do not think He will forego it until all injustices are ended, and every possible soul saved, on earth, and in heaven. It would be a good move for any of us to assist in that process, however we feel most suited.

 

It is interesting to consider what happens then, to keep us from boredom while eternity stretches forward. I am not sure I have a theologically correct answer to this disconcerting, end of meaningful reason for being, possibilty. I just hope God does.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 2RM

Bump.

 

Relax. And forgive me for not having all the time, or answers, to respond as I might wish.

 

But since you want my opinion, it is this. We are built by both nature and nurture, as well as, importantly, our free decisions. These three are constantly, vitally and more subtly in interplay, influencing what we think, what we say, what we do, and what we are. It helps our potential for happiness considerably if integrity occurs, which is the confluence of all these latter four.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I would agree with you on that. I did still have professors who championed true intellectual pursuits and honest critical thinking, but you're right that they were the minority.

Bias always enters in. This is why I can't accept the post-Cartesian notions of disengaged reason and objectivity. They simply do not exist in the forms put forth by this school of thought, and the professors you and I speak of lend some evidence to that.

We are also in agreement that no intellectual pursuit will ever match or supercede the gospel. However, I have found some that reinforce it. And for this, I am most appreciative. But, it comes down to intention. Is the goal of the pursuit to glorify God, or something else?

Thank you for your thoughts, I found them edifying and very amenable to my own. Let me know if you get a different impression, though so that our dialogue may continue accordingly.

I completely agree, God bless! I look forward to more Conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have met quite a few people who would take exception to your  second sentence, the one about Mormon theology encouraging intellectualism. I agree. However, the problem with condemning intellectualism without clarification, which is what happens when people quote Elder Packer's talk without any context, is that a lot of Mormons end up thinking that any kind of intellectual thought is not okay. Often we are poorer as a people because of this trend.

We would do well as a people/individually to keep in mind Clayton Christianson's (area authorty 70 in Boston, Author of "how will you measure your life) counsel that truth is always consistent with Truth. I can see a shift in the church (for the better) in that many are looking outside the traidtional BYU/CES sources that we find at Deseret Book. Now, i am not disparaging these sources because they have bless many peoples lives, my only point is that there is so much wisdom and insight out there from non-member sources that can enhance our understandng of Gods plan, doctrine and principles, if we dont seek these great minds out, we are liminting ourselves to be taught by the Lord, I trully belive that. Someone should start a new topic in a forum (not sure which one) where members of LDS.net can post great books and other sources from non-members who they consider to fit into the catagory of "the best books."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The glory of God is intelligence" D&C 93:36

This is true. Intelligence has something that intellectualism will never have- emotion.

To put it in Star Trek terms: Intelligence is human, intellectualism is Vulcan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax. And forgive me for not having all the time, or answers, to respond as I might wish.

 

But since you want my opinion, it is this. We are built by both nature and nurture, as well as, importantly, our free decisions. These three are constantly, vitally and more subtly in interplay, influencing what we think, what we say, what we do, and what we are. It helps our potential for happiness considerably if integrity occurs, which is the confluence of all these latter four.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

No worries. I understand completely. There is nothing to forgive.

I agree with you in your opinion. From what I understand there are genetic tendencies for same-gender attraction (primarily with males), but sociological and psychological experiences coupled with the individuals choices play the primary role.

To me this means there is a choice in sexual orientation that is not independent of their own volition, and it is a complex choice with a large amount of variables that make each person's choice a unique circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to include quite a few citations and references here. My hope is that this will not put anyone on the defensive. My purpose in doing this is to humbly provide a verifiable, as-accurate-as-possible response, without stealing anyone’s intellectual property. Nothing more.
 

Intelligence has something that intellectualism will never have- emotion.


This is actually a fallacy that has emerged from social and colloquial uses of the terms “emotional intelligence” or “intelligence” proper. However, intelligence has nothing to do with emotion. Consider the following citations:

“There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence. However, over the years, most have fallen into one of three classes:
1) Definitions that emphasize adjustment or adaptation to the environment—adaptability to new situations, the capacity to deal with a range of situations.
2) Definitions that focus on the ability to learn—on educability in the broad sense of the term.
3) Definitions that emphasize abstract thinking—the ability to use a wide range of symbols and concepts, the ability to use both verbal and numerical symbols” (p. 178).
And further, “Beyond this, however, many definitions of intelligence are so broad or general as to be nearly useless.” (p. 179, my emphasis) *1

“[intelligence is] the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.” (p. 3) *2

“When we speak of the intellect or, better, of the intellectual powers and performances of persons, we are referring primarily to that special class of operations which constitute theorizing. The goal of these operations is the knowledge of true propositions or facts” (p. 26). *3

“To be intelligent is not merely to satisfy criteria [of intelligence], but to apply them [(intellectualism)]; to regulate one’s actions and not merely to be well-regulated. A person’s performance is described as careful or skillful, if in his operations he is ready to detect and correct lapses, to repeat and improve upon successes, to profit from the examples of others and so forth. He applies criteria [of intelligence] in performing critically, that is, in trying to get things right” (p. 28-29). *3

“It follows that the operation which is characterized as intelligent must be preceded by an intellectual acknowledgment of these rules or criteria; that is, the agent must first go through the internal process of avowing to himself certain propositions [truths] about what is to be done… [h]e must preach to himself before he can practice” (p. 29). *3

The affective neurosciences are demonstrating via deep brain scan imaging how the “thinking” parts of our brains completely shut down the more emotional we become. *4

In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Daniel Kahneman talks about how our thinking is strained (faulty, difficult to utilize) when we are in a bad mood, or how it is eased (not at peak intellectual performance) when we are in a good mood (p. 59). In this book, he defines two systems of thinking: the first being fast and more emotional and less intellectual, while the other being slow and more deliberative, intellectual, and logical. *5

Now, let’s look at what intellectualism is:

intellectualism n. 1. Exercise of application of intellect. 2. Devotion or development of the intellect. *6

intellect n. 1a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability. *6

intelligence n. 1a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. b. The faculty of thought and reason. c. Superior powers of mind. *6
------------------------
I think the first thing one must humbly accept in this debate is that concepts such as intellectualism, intellect, and intelligence have been debated by philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists, IQ test creators, and logiticians for 2,500+ years. There is still no real, true agreement on precisely what they are with one exception being that intelligence is in fact a separate faculty of the brain/mind than emotion. Another universal agreement demonstrated above, and since the time of Socrates, is that intellect, intelligence, and intellectualism are quite generally considered to be the same, with the minor distinction being that one (intellect/intelligence) is a capacity a person possesses while the other (intellectualism) is the capacity to use what one possesses. But, as Ryle implicitly pointed out, the two are the same.

Now, what is different from intellectualism, but is many times mistaken as it, is ideology. When the two are mistaken, intellectualism can most definitely seem contrary/dangerous to the gospel, because ideology certainly can be that. But, intellectualism proper is not.

If we are talking about ideology, then I very much agree that we may find ourselves on a much more slippery slope, especially because ideology is often laden with emotional bias.

*1 – Trull, T. J. (2005). Clinical psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
*2 – Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
*3 – Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
*4 – Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neurosciences: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
*5 – Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux.
*6 – The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Edited by Urstadt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to include quite a few citations and references here. My hope is that this will not put anyone on the defensive. My purpose in doing this is to humbly provide a verifiable, as-accurate-as-possible response, without stealing anyone’s intellectual property. Nothing more.

 

This is actually a fallacy that has emerged from social and colloquial uses of the terms “emotional intelligence” or “intelligence” proper. However, intelligence has nothing to do with emotion. Consider the following citations:

“There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence. However, over the years, most have fallen into one of three classes:

1) Definitions that emphasize adjustment or adaptation to the environment—adaptability to new situations, the capacity to deal with a range of situations.

2) Definitions that focus on the ability to learn—on educability in the broad sense of the term.

3) Definitions that emphasize abstract thinking—the ability to use a wide range of symbols and concepts, the ability to use both verbal and numerical symbols” (p. 178).

And further, “Beyond this, however, many definitions of intelligence are so broad or general as to be nearly useless.” (p. 179, my emphasis) *1

“[intelligence is] the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.” (p. 3) *2

“When we speak of the intellect or, better, of the intellectual powers and performances of persons, we are referring primarily to that special class of operations which constitute theorizing. The goal of these operations is the knowledge of true propositions or facts” (p. 26). *3

“To be intelligent is not merely to satisfy criteria [of intelligence], but to apply them [(intellectualism)]; to regulate one’s actions and not merely to be well-regulated. A person’s performance is described as careful or skillful, if in his operations he is ready to detect and correct lapses, to repeat and improve upon successes, to profit from the examples of others and so forth. He applies criteria [of intelligence] in performing critically, that is, in trying to get things right” (p. 28-29). *3

“It follows that the operation which is characterized as intelligent must be preceded by an intellectual acknowledgment of these rules or criteria; that is, the agent must first go through the internal process of avowing to himself certain propositions [truths] about what is to be done… [h]e must preach to himself before he can practice” (p. 29). *3

The affective neurosciences are demonstrating via deep brain scan imaging how the “thinking” parts of our brains completely shut down the more emotional we become. *4

In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Daniel Kahneman talks about how our thinking is strained (faulty, difficult to utilize) when we are in a bad mood, or how it is eased (not at peak intellectual performance) when we are in a good mood (p. 59). In this book, he defines two systems of thinking: the first being fast and more emotional and less intellectual, while the other being slow and more deliberative, intellectual, and logical. *5

Now, let’s look at what intellectualism is:

intellectualism n. 1. Exercise of application of intellect. 2. Devotion or development of the intellect. *6

intellect n. 1a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability. *6

intelligence n. 1a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. b. The faculty of thought and reason. c. Superior powers of mind. *6

------------------------

I think the first thing one must humbly accept in this debate is that concepts such as intellectualism, intellect, and intelligence have been debated by philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists, IQ test creators, and logiticians for 2,500+ years. There is still no real, true agreement on precisely what they are with one exception being that intelligence is in fact a separate faculty of the brain/mind than emotion. Another universal agreement demonstrated above, and since the time of Socrates, is that intellect, intelligence, and intellectualism are quite generally considered to be the same, with the minor distinction being that one (intellect/intelligence) is a capacity a person possesses while the other (intellectualism) is the capacity to use what one possesses. But, as Ryle implicitly pointed out, the two are the same.

Now, what is different from intellectualism, but is many times mistaken as it, is ideology. When the two are mistaken, intellectualism can most definitely seem contrary/dangerous to the gospel, because ideology certainly can be that. But, intellectualism proper is not.

If we are talking about ideology, then I very much agree that we may find ourselves on a much more slippery slope, especially because ideology is often laden with emotional bias.

*1 – Trull, T. J. (2005). Clinical psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

*2 – Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

*3 – Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

*4 – Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neurosciences: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

*5 – Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux.

*6 – The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

I think I understand what is happening now. I feel that Boyd K. Packer was referring the philosophical definition of intellectualism in his talk, which is thought completely devoid of emotion; thought that only uses reason and logic. This is a very unhealthy process of thought that is detrimental to society and the soul.

Does this explain our difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this