Intellectualism welcome?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So it is taking me some getting used to more of a 'hive mind' approach. Something to think about.

Ouch!

I emphatically do not think the church as a whole has a hive mind approach. Some members do, just as the general public does. To prove my point all you need to do is spend some serious time here. You'll find many intellectual people and discussions.so, yes, absolutely scholarship is encouraged.

I'm vaguely familiar with Joanna Brooks. She is what you mean by intellectual? I think she is an interesting person, but intellectual? May I suggest you look at Terryl and Fiona Givens. They have a couple books published by Deseret, and Terryl has several more from other publishers. They are what I call intellectuals.

Then there's Hugh Nibley, and Neal A. Maxwell. I can't think of the authors name at the moment but he writes about symbolism. Anyone know who I mean? Then ther is FARMS...Foundation for Ancient Research something or other. And this is just a sampling.

Also research "Pathway BYU Idaho" to see how the church is trying to make college education available to more people all over the world. Pathway is for people who couldn't afford college, or wanted to go but weren't sure they were ready and others.It's amazing.

So yes we value education and are encouraged to be life-long learners not only about the world around us, but the gospel as well.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

The reason questions don't bother you because you have faith.  The reason questions have the potential of hurting you if, like Catlick, you are still struggling with your faith.

 Again, I disagree but there is no point in going around in circles. You need faith and reason. 

 

I've found that these questions hurt MORE if you are told to ignore them or just disregard them.  Or, much, much worse is when someone says "Shut up and obey" 

 

No, Anatess, not saying you are saying that at all. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

 Again, I disagree but there is no point in going around in circles. You need faith and reason. 

 

You need faith FIRST.  Then reason.  In the same way that you put up a hypothesis first, then run the experiment.

Edited September 22, 2015 by anatess

[Catlick]

Not sure what that is a list of, but it is certainly not a list of "hard questions".

 

 

Well, I assumed they were hard questions because no one seems to want to address them. They're also hard to ask without feeling like I'm offending someone--so, I refer to them as "hard questions." My designation, really.

 

 

And like you, Vort, I have also been avoiding anti-Mormon stuff, which is why I'd rather come here to ask than run a Google search. I avoid any non-LDS affiliated Mormon forums or sites because it's crazy conspiracy theory stuff. There is so much junk out there, and much of it is puffed up rhetoric just trying to prove the church "wrong." Meanwhile, LDS folk are the ones living the most authentic Christianity that I have ever seen. Which is why I'm here in the first place. I guess I'm just trying to see where I can fit.

[Vort]

MormonGator--thanks for rebutting the issues I've been wondering about! I don't actually take stock in things like the Salamander letter, but I want to be able to ask without feeling like I'm offending. And that is the feeling I get when I ask ward members about uncomfortable issues from the past--I am not anti-Mormon in the least (I get heated when I hear anti-Mormon rhetoric). But I want to be able to explore those issues and not dismiss them outright. I'm someone who needs to put things on the table, dissect them, and understand them. I don't want to feel that asking about sticky issues is offensive.

 

Asking questions is not wrong. You should do it. But, for example, do you think a child's baptism is a good time to ask the congregated Saints about some doctrinal problem you're having? Is your sister's wedding the appropriate time to question marital patterns?

 

Some may actually feel that even asking such questions is a breach of faith. This is untrue, but I grant that some believe it. But others simply think that Sunday services are not the right venue for questions raised by anti-Mormons. I do not know whether I agree or not; it is not obvious to me that a gospel doctrine class is the right place to discuss such things. But maybe. Probably depends on the people involved; some people might be weak enough in the faith that even raising such issues hurts their spirits and makes them feel hopeless. In other cases (I'm thinking more along the lines of a quorum meeting), brothers around you might be more than happy to explain why they believe that such-and-such is not a problem.

[Guest]

 I don't want to feel that asking about sticky issues is offensive.

 

Let me put you at ease.  Asking about sticky issues in NOT offensive.  You just need to make sure you are asking the issues with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest MormonGator]

" Meanwhile, LDS folk are the ones living the most authentic Christianity that I have ever seen. Which is why I'm here in the first place. I guess I'm just trying to see where I can fit.

   Oh Gosh Catlick, YES. 

 

You want to find real love, compassion and strength? Become LDS. It's been the greatest thing to ever happen to me.  

[Vort]

Vort, you know I have nothing but love for you, so I ask this question honestly with no bad intentions-how can you argue a point if you haven't read the other side? I ask in honesty, nothing else. 

 

A reasonable question. You must understand both the opposition's argument and their reasons for believing that argument before you can effectively respond. I have found that simple reflection on my part and hearing or reading the honest questions of others (LDS and non-LDS) is sufficient for me to be able to articulate and understand their reasoning. From there, I can work toward formulating a response, which in some cases has required me to learn historical or spiritual lessons I had not known.

[Guest MormonGator]

A reasonable question. 

 And you gave a very reasonable answer. Thank you my friend. 

[Guest]

 Which is why I'm here in the first place. I guess I'm just trying to see where I can fit.

 

You fit right here between MormonGator and me.  We can knock ourselves out with the intellectual stuff.  Hey, let's add cdowis infront too.  We actually like delving into these things and spinning it around in our heads. 

[Guest MormonGator]

You need faith FIRST.  Then reason.  In the same way that you put up a hypothesis first, then run the experiment.

 Right, and that's where we disagree. I believe you need reason first, then faith evolves from it. It's good to see where we disagree though. Clarity is way more important than agreeing on everything. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

And the fact that Anatess and I can disagree and I still view her as a sister in Christ (I hope and pray she views me as a brother in Christ!) sort of shows that free thinking LDS are more than welcome here. We (LDS people) are hardly monolithic in thought and deed. I have tattoos, long hair , piercings and I love heavy metal. I've always felt very welcome in the church even though I don't look like everyone else. 

If we agreed on everything the internet would be a very boring place. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

 Right, and that's where we disagree. I believe you need reason first, then faith evolves from it. It's good to see where we disagree though. Clarity is way more important than agreeing on everything. 

 

Probably just different ways that we approach learning.

 

I can pick any gospel topic and come up with 2 very reasonable and very different opposing conclusions.  Heck, I can pick any restored gospel divergent from the Catholic teaching and argue the points from the Catholic understanding in the morning and argue the points from the LDS understanding in the afternoon!  So I apply faith first and apply reason from that prism.

Edited September 22, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

And the fact that Anatess and I can disagree and I still view her as a sister in Christ (I hope and pray she views me as a brother in Christ!) sort of shows that free thinking LDS are more than welcome here.

If we agreed on everything the internet would be a very boring place. 

 

MormonGator, we can disagree all day long... We are always brother and sister, not only in Christ, but also as GATORS!!!  Whoo Rah!

 

By the way, I got tickets to the Oct 3 game at the swamp. 

[Guest MormonGator]

MormonGator, we can disagree all day long... We are always brother and sister, not only in Christ, but also as GATORS!!!  Whoo Rah!

 

By the way, I got tickets to the Oct 3 game at the swamp. 

 Chomp Chomp!  :)

[Catlick]

Thanks, friends! This is very reassuring. I don't want to sound like a rebel, because that's not who I am. The LDS outlook on life is very much in line with how I live my life, making it a good fit. I just want to be able to speak my mind occasionally and not be seen as a threat or a nay-sayer.

 

LiterateParakeet, I LOVE Terryl and Fiona Givens. I also find myself moved to tears by the clarity and honesty that I hear when I listen to Gordon B. Hinckley. So many sources of LDS wisdom out there!

 

As far as Joanna Brooks, she is a younger female voice in the church that resonates with me. I listened to an interview with her this morning (on Mormon Matters, and yes, I know about Dehlin...) and she just makes so much sense to me. She promotes more of an allowance for those who question but don't speak up and then quietly leave the church. She is an active member who wants to see more room for imperfection and for more LDS books written by people who have struggled with doctrine yet still practice their faith. So, she's not totally orthodox in the sense that she repeats church teachings, but she applies church teachings to every day, imperfect life. She also states that the church, in shying away from healthy debate, does a disservice to those who may be thinking of joining. It is unfortunate that the only (and I mean ONLY) books I can find at any national bookstore like Barnes & Noble that are remotely related to the LDS church are usually either by Krakauer or some escape-from-polygamy tell-all that just reinforces that old stereotype. Grrr. Brooks is right in that there should be more literature (not just scholarly), but mom-to-mom books, parenting books, teen nonfiction, etc--just the way we see those things in the mainstream Christian literary world. Anyway, I've rambled...

Edited September 22, 2015 by Catlick

[Guest MormonGator]

Thanks, friends! This is very reassuring. I don't want to sound like a rebel, because that's not who I am.

Rebels are very, very welcome in the church.  Many of us have that streak inside us. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by MormonGator

[Catlick]

 I have tattoos, long hair , piercings and I love heavy metal. I've always felt very welcome in the church even though I don't look like everyone else. 

If we agreed on everything the internet would be a very boring place. 

Indeed! No tattoos here, but I rock out to Led Zeppelin on a regular basis--even while taking the kids to school. That's just the kind of mom I am, and my Mormon girlfriends still love me.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I feel that it wouldn't be very easy to have a faith crisis while Mormon. I tend to question a lot, and I'm feeling that there may not be a place for someone like me in the cultural fabric of the church. And it's not that I'm a rabble rouser--it's just that I think a lot, and I question a lot, and I want to know if there would be somewhere I could go to ask the hard questions, like questioning surrounding the Kinderhook plates, the Salamander letter, Book of Abraham--the list goes on. I just want to feel that there is a strong foundation to the feelings I have regarding the Book of Mormon, or if I would be censured (not censored) for asking.

I imagine from your comments that you are familiar with John Dehlin. He seems to be one of those intellectuals that got excommunicated that you are thinking of. But how much do you know about him?

I started listening to his podcasts several years ago when I was in my own faith crisis. My questions were very different than his, but it was helpful to not be the only one questioning.

From listening to his podcast personally I can tell you a few things....he openly questioned the church for years. His podcast alternated between supportive of the church to questioning to almost anti-Mormon stuff.

For a period of time, he meet regularly with his Stake President and discussed his faith questions.He was not disciplined by the church for any of that. Questioning is not the problem.

When he decided that he no longer believed in God, Christ, or the church and began to openly try to sway church members to his point of view about homosexuality...that is when excommunication began to be a possibility.

Let me restate that...when he actively began to try and led people astray...because he longer believed...that is when he got excommunicated. It was not for questioning. Look at his podcast, he had been openly questioning for years!

Now what you said about it being difficult to have a faith crisis in the church. I have to admit that is true. In my faith crisis it was hard to find support...but that is slowly changing. Pres. Uctdorf has addressed people with questions a few times now in Conference (for which I am so grateful).

Terryl and Fiona Givens wrote The Crucible of Doubt (published by Deseret). I read it recently-it's fabulous. It helped me a lot. FAIR Mormon was also very helpful. Slowly the culture is changing for which I am grateful. I think we could have retained some members who have fallen away IF they had felt comfortable sharing their doubts and concerns. But that is a problem with the culture of the church, not the gospel itself. And as I said it is slowly improving.

Edited September 22, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Catlick]

Good to hear my thoughts validated, LiterateParakeet. And yes, I'm familiar with Dehlin's story, though I do still listen to his older podcasts and enjoy the debates. I don't personally care for his interview style--I feel that he says a lot in his silence (if that makes sense), and he makes subtle statements that I feel undermine a person's faith. It sounds to me like he lost his faith and wants others to 'wake up' and do the same, and he doesn't really hear what the interviewee has to say, which is a shame.

[The Folk Prophet]

The primary challenge we face in this life...the core test of life, if you will...is whether we will humble ourselves and submit our wills to God's or not. The problem with "intellectualism" is that it can run us head on against this and become a major stumbling block to people. But the test amounts to the same. The problem isn't with intellectualism. The problem is with humility vs. pride. If we humble ourselves then intellectualism holds no danger. If we do not, it will destroy us. This is the same for anything. But there is a special challenge around intellectualism when it comes to the pride/humility equation because intellectualism, by it's nature, is centered in self and tends toward self-aggrandizement.

 

As the Book of Mormon teaches, "to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.29?lang=eng#28) That 2nd part is key.

[jerome1232]

I think that intellectualism is one of those virtues that can become a vice. By definition intellectualism means to purely use reason and logic to arrive at your conclusion. It doesn't mean someone who is really smart and likes to delve deeply into philosophy, theology, history, or archaeology. We have more than our fair share of intelligent people, philosophers, historians, archaeologists, and even a speckling of theologians.

But here's the thing, we don't believe the path to Christ is through logic. It's a spiritual journey in which logic can and does play a part. In our spiritual journey I think it's a mark of pride to think we can logic everything out, no, we must rely on the spirit of God to reveal truth to us. We also don't use man's logic  (theology) to determine our doctrine. We rely on our prophet to reveal it to us, and we study it out seeking the Lords help to know if it is true.

You see, even the village idiot can hear God's voice whispering truth to him. I think that is much more beautiful than thinking that I, a lowly man, can puzzle out the kingdom of God using my own ability to reason.

Vort has already echoed this but in Church we tend to stick to central basic messages of the Gospel. Perhaps if the spirit dictates there may be appropriate times to discuss these questions but for the most part, let's keep that basic. There are some online venues great for discussing such topics such as FAIR or FARMS (ymmv on opinions of these entities however). I think as you make friends individual conversation can be another venue for discussion.

[Catlick]

I think that intellectualism is one of those virtues that can become a vice.

 

I really like this! Thanks for the input--what you say makes so much sense. My faith has always been part and parcel of my reasoning mind, and you're right--How can I even assume that my human brain can grasp God's truth? I do feel like I'm spinning my wheels sometimes, maybe I just want to have some company to spin those wheels with. When my mind does find an intersection between my faith and my knowledge, my mind is blown in a good way. I love it when that happens, and I like to keep my logic and my heart intermingled. Ah, I do need to pray on this.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Catlick

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks, friends! This is very reassuring. I don't want to sound like a rebel, because that's not who I am. The LDS outlook on life is very much in line with how I live my life, making it a good fit. I just want to be able to speak my mind occasionally and not be seen as a threat or a nay-sayer.

 

LiterateParakeet, I LOVE Terryl and Fiona Givens. I also find myself moved to tears by the clarity and honesty that I hear when I listen to Gordon B. Hinckley. So many sources of LDS wisdom out there!

 

As far as Joanna Brooks, she is a younger female voice in the church that resonates with me. I listened to an interview with her this morning (on Mormon Matters, and yes, I know about Dehlin...) and she just makes so much sense to me. She promotes more of an allowance for those who question but don't speak up and then quietly leave the church. She is an active member who wants to see more room for imperfection and for more LDS books written by people who have struggled with doctrine yet still practice their faith. So, she's not totally orthodox in the sense that she repeats church teachings, but she applies church teachings to every day, imperfect life. She also states that the church, in shying away from healthy debate, does a disservice to those who may be thinking of joining. It is unfortunate that the only (and I mean ONLY) books I can find at any national bookstore like Barnes & Noble that are remotely related to the LDS church are usually either by Krakauer or some escape-from-polygamy tell-all that just reinforces that old stereotype. Grrr. Brooks is right in that there should be more literature (not just scholarly), but mom-to-mom books, parenting books, teen nonfiction, etc--just the way we see those things in the mainstream Christian literary world. Anyway, I've rambled...

 

Sorry for any confusion, we were posting at the same time.  I was typing on my phone which took just this side of forever.   :)  I'm glad you love the Givens too.  Their first book together, The God Who Weeps, was also a tremendous help to me...and I first heard of them on MormonStories.  :)  

 

I understand much better now why you mentioned Joanna Brooks.  I share some of her concerns.  I think though that it is a cultural not doctrinal issue, one I see slowly changing.  

 

I do wish there were more "room" for all kinds of LDS books.  Besides Deseret there are only really two other publishers, Covenant and Cedar Fort.  How can we fill up Barnes and Noble, when there are so few LDS Publishers.  It's really hard to get into one of those three, and other Christian publishers don't want anything to do with LDS stuff.  The Big 6 doesn't want religion at all it seems.  A lot of LDS authors either write outside of LDS faith like Shannon Hale, Brandon Mull, and Orson Scott Card.  Or they self-publish.  

 

I wrote a book about my faith crisis, and the answers I found.  But I wrote it in a non-denominational way for the reasons I just explained.  My book is Touching His Robe: Reaching Past the Shame and Anger of Abuse.  

 

I know Joanna has a book (or a couple books) published.  People are getting out there little by little.  I think Anatess made a good point that the church is still really young...200 yrs young.  

Edited September 22, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Just_A_Guy]

It might not be a bad idea to read the whole of Packer's speech, in order to understand where he was coming from.  Here's an online version of it.

 

IMHO: "Intellectualism" is to "Intellectual" as "Islamist" is to "Islam" (or, to be grammatically proper, "Muslim").  Neither "intellectuals" nor "Muslims" are bad.  The trouble happens when groups of people claiming either label, decide that they should be granted disproportionate control of the broader society within which they exist.  Thus, Elder Packer notes in the same talk:

 

. . . out in the Church there is another growing group of the discontented. That is the rank and file who are trying to do what they are supposed to do and feel neglected as we concentrate on solving the problems of the exceptions.  (Emphasis added.)

Edited September 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy