Recommended Posts

There is another broad problem with "intellectualism". It misplaces focus on what is truly important. This is a huge problem right now.

 

What do I mean by this? What is the means whereby we may know truth? The Book of Mormon, once again, teaches us this: Jacob 4:13:

 

"for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls."

 

then it goes on to teach further:

 

"But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old."

 

The pattern is clearly set forth here. God gives us truth through the prophets and the Spirit manifests the truth of those words unto us.

 

We can see the same teaching in Moroni 10:4:-5

 

"And when ye shall receive these things, [as in, the writings of the prophets] I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

 

In vs. 14 of Jacob 4 we read:

 

"But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble."

 

Ask yourself: How does this relate to "intellectualism"? What does it mean to look beyond the mark (or as I put it, to focus on something unimportant in favor of what is truly important)?

 

There are too many people who begin to focus on intellectualism, study, learning, their own wisdom, etc, instead of focusing on the path given us that we may know truth ("know" being the key word here). It is all fine and dandy to be learned. It is all fine and dandy to have theories and explore the depths of the gospel or difficult topics. But you see this problem rearing it's ugly head in ideas like unto:

 

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. [clip]  She also states that the church, in shying away from healthy debate, does a disservice to those who may be thinking of joining.

 

This whole approach is centered in the wrong pattern. It is looking beyond the mark. It does not, nor can it, truly bring people closer to God because the focus is wrong. The focus is on intellectualism, reasoning, and the philosophies of men. In these things we should not put our trust.

 

Consider also D&C 9:28

 

"He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things."

 

Intellectualism is at war with this principle as well. Intellectualism stems from the perspective that we learn first and then follow. This pattern is backwards. We follow first, then we learn.

 

It is not mindlessness. It is not a hive mentality. It is a different approach, and the one given by God as to how we are to receive truth, light and knowledge. These are given us as gifts of the Spirit because of our diligence and obedience, and this promise is to all, not just those with strong intellects. Even the naturally stupid may be given this truth and light by keeping the commandments.

 

Practically speaking it would be foolish to discard learning in favor of only obedience (moreover, as we have been commanded to study and learn, it would be disobedient to do so. ;) ) So do not think these teaching espouse the discarding of book learning, academia, or the like. They do not. As I have said, it's about focus and about not looking beyond the mark.

 

Joanna Brooks is determined that she is intellectually ahead of the church. And that is dangerous at best. Some of her ideas may be sound. But her entire approach is, to my thinking, more harmful than helpful.

 

What Latter-day Saints should be encouraging is study by faith, prayer, diligence in obedience, and humility. These things, centered in Christ, are the focus we should encourage. With this focus in place, intellectualize all you want. If that intellectualizing starts to pull focus from what truly matters, then it become a problem.

 

God is concerned with our learning and knowledge. But the primary knowledge He wants us to have is a knowledge of Him. And this knowledge can only truly come by revelation. Other knowledge is good, but not imperative. We can, and should, learn as many things as we reasonably can. But consider: can a mentally disabled person be saved? (Let's presume they're just intelligent enough to be accountable for their choices.) Of course they can. Will they ever have the intellectual understanding of others? No? Intellectual understanding by way of book learning and academia is not key. Faith, obedience, endurance, humility, etc. These are key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Catlick, nice to see you again!    :)

 

I haven't read the replies to your post yet, but wanted to respond to the OP.

 

As a Catholic, we are encouraged to dig, to challenge, to seek answers, and faith is a lifelong process.

 

Mormons too.

 


I recently read that BoydPacker stated that "the three greatest threats to the church were homosexuals, feminists and intellectuals." Ouch.

 

 
Note: not everything that comes out of an apostle's mouth is "Thus saith the Lord".  They are human and allowed to express their opinions.  This would be one such example.  (Granted, anti-Mormons love using this quote and pretending otherwise).
 
Also, if you read the whole context of this, you will find that the intellectuals he's referring to are those that are of great worldly learning and hence think they are wise, despite not knowing anything of the Lord.  A few (not all) of these people like to put up smoke screens of fancy words and haughty ideas to blind people from seeing the simple things of God. 
 
Obviously the church isn't against learning or using your mind, else why would it own 4 universities?  Let alone all the talks, lessons, and scriptures declaring "the glory of God is intelligence" (D&C 93:36).

 

So there it is. It might be telling to say that one of my favorite public Mormons is Joanna Brooks. I can't find anything by her held by Deseret Book, and I wonder if that says something?

 

I LOVE Joanna!  She's one of my absolutely favorite writers (LDS or not)!  

 

As to her not being at Desert Book, well Desert Book doesn't exactly carry much in the way of non-GA material.... 

 

 

In your experience, is this reluctance to admit intellectualism among ward members typical? Do you see it changing anytime soon? While I love so much about the LDS church, this scares me a little. There are so many who have been excommunicated for their thoughts and open speech that it seems a bit draconian to me. So I'm hesitating furthering any talk of baptism with the missionaries until I feel that new voices and perspectives are welcome.

 
Do LDS hesitate to admit intellectualism?  No, as long as it's grounded in the Lord.  
 

There are so many who have been excommunicated for their thoughts and open speech that it seems a bit draconian to me. So I'm hesitating furthering any talk of baptism with the missionaries until I feel that new voices and perspectives are welcome.

 
 
If you're talking about Kate Kelly, she was excommunicated for politically campaigning against the ways of the Lord- thinking that human lawyer will change the divine.  After being instructed by leaders of the Lord that this is not the right way, she said "I know better and will try to convince others of it".  After that, yes, she was excommunicated.   Since leaving the LDS church, she has joined the Planned Parenthood payroll.
 
If you're talking John Dehlin, he no longer believed in the divinity of Christ, and was activity trying to get others to see his side, while make a nice pay check doing it.  So yes, he was excommunicated too.  
 
Neither of these were excommunicated for thinking, but rather declare war against God and saying "I know better".
 
Again, thinking and intellect is a wonderful thing.  But pride is a horrible thing too.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: not everything that comes out of an apostle's mouth is "Thus saith the Lord".  They are human and allowed to express their opinions.  This would be one such example.  (Granted, anti-Mormons love using this quote and pretending otherwise).

 

How do you know this is one such example? Were you privy to the session where he came up with the idea, inside his head, and can speak to whether it came from the Lord or not?

 

I think it is, obviously, clear that intellectualism has been and is one of the greatest threats to the church. It doesn't have to be. But it very much is.

 

Elder Packer was clearly correct in his statement. His ideas were prophetic. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that what he said was not from the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Note: not everything that comes out of an apostle's mouth is "Thus saith the Lord".  They are human and allowed to express their opinions.  This would be one such example.  (Granted, anti-Mormons love using this quote and pretending otherwise).

 

Actually, as I wrote before, I think just the opposite. I believe that time has proven every syllable of Elder Packer's words prophetic.

 

I LOVE Joanna!  She's one of my absolutely favorite writers (LDS or not)!

 

TFP's opinions about Brooks and her work echo my own. I find her an extremely useful person to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point, anatess. There is a lot of new Mormon scholarship coming out, though mostly authored by authorities of the church. I guess what I'm really asking is if there is room for questioning. 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.

 

Yes you can be Mormon and have questions.  I would consider myself a very devout Mormon (though unorthodox) but I still question, and it's ok (check out this post from Saturday http://lds.net/forums/topic/57849-conflicted-after-stake-conference/)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Speaking as myself, I don't find these questions to be hard at all (less than a papier-mâché bouggie man).  I don't feel the need to talk about it at church cause... well I have some many better things to talk about that the fake papier-mâché bouggie man!  

 

Admittedly though, I do get tired of internet trolls, asking me about the papier-mâché bouggie man as some type of "gotcha" questions.  Note: you are totally not a troll Catlick (to state the obvious).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

What, in Brooks' opinion, does it mean for a person to "struggle with the doctrine yet still practice their faith" if the person actually rejects key faith practices as well as teachings?  Obviously we need not all be identical drones; but in Mormonism certain core beliefs and practices are non-negotiable.  Make the tent as big as you like; but there will always be someone who wants to claim the tent's shelter while living outside of the current boundaries.  At some point, such folks just need to be told "look, the tent won't stretch anymore and you've gotta choose--either you're in, or you're out."

 

It's one thing to want to offer encouragement and solace to those who try to live their religion and fall short, but from what I gather of Brooks--on certain life-choices (that are inextricably tied to core Mormon beliefs), her position is that we need not even try to attain a certain standard; and that the Church is wrong for insisting that the effort be made. 

 

Now, compassion is never a bad thing; and there's certainly nothing wrong with the paradigm of the Church as a hospital.  But if we're a hospital--doesn't that just reinforce the primacy of the doctors' role within that institution, and the absurdity of allowing the lunatics to run the asylum?

 

Does Brooks really see the LDS Church as a hospital--or even an egalitarian support group, run by nonprofessional peers for the mutual improvement of all?  Or does she just adopt that kind of lofty rhetoric while actually pushing a version of Mormonism that is closer to a social club, the duty of which is to offer its members community and belonging while never demanding sacrifice or personal growth or compliance to any absolute moral standards in return?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, as I wrote before, I think just the opposite. I believe that time has proven every syllable of Elder Packer's words prophetic.

 

 

TFP's opinions about Brooks and her work echo my own. I find her an extremely useful person to ignore.

 

 

Catlick: see an great example of two Mormon's disagreeing, but still getting along as siblings in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to something mentioned above; If you are interested there is a whole slew of LDS books. You can find them generally in LDS books stores. The one that most members would be familiar with is Deseret Books. I also find quite a few intellectually minded books can be found through the Maxwell Institute or FAIR mormon online bookstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I whole heatedly agree with Elder Packer. Homosexuality as a threat because it destroys the basic fundamental characteristic of our identity-male and female. Feminism because it destroys the basic fundamental ability of male and female to be joined as one and to co-create in a stable environment wherein society can be replicated and passed on through generations.  Finally intellectualism because it destroys the basic fundamental principle of faith and belief-which are necessary for religion.

 

Intellectualism leads to atheism. If one types intellectualism into google what pops up is:

"Philosophy

the theory that knowledge is wholly or mainly derived from pure reason; rationalism"
 
 
That philosophy has absolutely no place in the Church. The first principle of the Gospel is faith; things that are hoped for but not yet seen.
 
 
Intellectualism is different than being learned or knowing a lot of things or researching a lot of things-it is a mindset that disregards the intangibles of life. A philosophy that states I can only believe in things I can prove through either experimentation or through reason. A Higher Power that knows better than us and gives to us laws and commandments has no place in intellectualism. Many times God's laws are things that are very difficult to reason with.  Why Polygamy? Why did God say to Abraham to sacrifice his son? What does that Atonement actually do and how? How is it logical for a Savior to come and atone for all the sins of the world? How is it reasonable that He would know my sins 2000 years ago and pay the price for them then? 
 
How can one claim it as reason that by praying to God for an remission of sins that somehow I can feel His grace wash over me?
 
For me, the Gospel is certainly very logical, the Plan of Salvation, Fall, Atonement, etc. is a very natural progression and to me it all makes intellectual sense, but only in as much as I exercise the Faith to believe in it. The crux of it all boils down to my faith that God at some point talked to a prophet and those individuals who God talked to wrote down their dealings with God. And how can I reason through God talking to a prophet unless either I simply take it on faith or I have my own personal experiences that lead me to believe that He can talk to men on this earth.
 
Intellectualism is a huge problem and it is becoming more-so of one. The upcoming younger generation is a generation that is losing faith.  Having grown up in a world where all knowledge and information is simply a click away, the need to actually pray for and receive direct inspiration from God diminishes. The upcoming generation has been taught that being smart is the way to success-gain as much knowledge as possible.  Unfortunately, we as a society have done a poor job at teaching the intangibles; I don't care how smart you are if you are an egotistical narcissist.  
 
I think we should be very cautious about the amount of time we spend becoming more intellectual (which is different than intellectualism).  The intangibles of spirituality, being a good neighbor, working hard, etc. are all things that don't come from reading a book or doing research-they come from action. How much time do we spend learning more vs. having a prayer in our heart and constantly communicating with our God? It is a rhetorical question, b/c I most certainly am guilty focusing more on the intellectual vs. action.
Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual endeavor is actually encouraged by the church. I'm actually one of countless members to have a graduate degree, which should tell you how open the church is to academic study (MBA, emphasis in marketing, special training in marketing research).

The issue comes when people allow their (perceived) intelligence or education to over-inflate their egos. If you're being rude to anyone who you consider "inferior", talking smack to your local leadership, or even arguing against church doctrine, then you're allowing your pride to get the better of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Intellectual endeavor is actually encouraged by the church. I'm actually one of countless members to have a graduate degree, which should tell you how open the church is to academic study (MBA, emphasis in marketing, special training in marketing research).

The issue comes when people allow their (perceived) intelligence or education to over-inflate their egos. If you're being rude to anyone who you consider "inferior", talking smack to your local leadership, or even arguing against church doctrine, then you're allowing your pride to get the better of you.

 I love when non members think we are all a bunch of idiots. One guy was bashing us (LDS) left and right and I asked him bluntly, "So all the doctors and Ph.Ds who are LDS are just idiots too, huh?" He said "Well, no thinking person could be LDS." I asked him to read my masters thesis and he couldn't get by the first page. Too many "big words". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

I see your point. Yes, some intellectuals use their minds as weapons, the way an Islamist does to further their agenda. Good parallel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you're talking about Kate Kelly, she was excommunicated for politically campaigning against the ways of the Lord- thinking that human lawyer will change the divine.  After being instructed by leaders of the Lord that this is not the right way, she said "I know better and will try to convince others of it".  After that, yes, she was excommunicated.   Since leaving the LDS church, she has joined the Planned Parenthood payroll.
 
If you're talking John Dehlin, he no longer believed in the divinity of Christ, and was activity trying to get others to see his side, while make a nice pay check doing it.  So yes, he was excommunicated too.  
 
Neither of these were excommunicated for thinking, but rather declare war against God and saying "I know better".
 
Again, thinking and intellect is a wonderful thing.  But pride is a horrible thing too.
 

 

Nice to see you again, too, Jane_Doe! And thanks for taking the time to answer yet another of my questions. ;) Yes, I am thinking of Kate Kelly, and you make a good point. She didn't get excommunicated for thinking wayward thoughts--she got excommunicated for actively pursuing a path against the church and trying to get others to come along with her. Same with John Dehlin. Thanks for clarifying that--I think my fears got the best of me and I thought that my questions about God and life and everything in between would get me in trouble or something! ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I think we should be very cautious about the amount of time we spend becoming more intellectual (which is different than intellectualism).  The intangibles of spirituality, being a good neighbor, working hard, etc. are all things that don't come from reading a book or doing research-they come from action. How much time do we spend learning more vs. having a prayer in our heart and constantly communicating with our God? It is a rhetorical question, b/c I most certainly am guilty focusing more on the intellectual vs. action.

 

While I don't totally agree with you, yjacket, that there is no place for reason in the church, I love what you wrote above. I've spent so much time trying to figure things out in my head that I'm no closer to baptism and I still feel confused. I don't want to still be in this same place ten years from now, trying to make things fit on the rational level while not actually practicing my faith. I am going to print your words out, in fact, so that I have them as a reminder. I needed to hear this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I love when non members think we are all a bunch of idiots. One guy was bashing us (LDS) left and right and I asked him bluntly, "So all the doctors and Ph.Ds who are LDS are just idiots too, huh?" He said "Well, no thinking person could be LDS." I asked him to read my masters thesis and he couldn't get by the first page. Too many "big words". 

Wow, sounds like a jerk! Truly, my LDS friends are some of the smartest people I know--they're all professionals and have not only spent plenty of time in grad school for the book smarts, but have the life experience that I don't that makes them especially aware of the human experience (probably due to the mission years?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to something mentioned above; If you are interested there is a whole slew of LDS books. You can find them generally in LDS books stores. The one that most members would be familiar with is Deseret Books. I also find quite a few intellectually minded books can be found through the Maxwell Institute or FAIR mormon online bookstore.

(I wish I could figure out how to quote all of you in one post, sorry about multi-posting, but here goes one more...)

 

I live in California, and we don't have any LDS bookstores that I know of. I'll check out Deseret Book and the others you mention online, but I'd love to physically browse an LDS bookstore! I've gotta make that Salt Lake road trip someday, I really do.

Edited by Catlick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Wow, sounds like a jerk! Truly, my LDS friends are some of the smartest people I know--they're all professionals and have not only spent plenty of time in grad school for the book smarts, but have the life experience that I don't that makes them especially aware of the human experience (probably due to the mission years?)

 It was cute because he proved himself to be well, not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

 

I never take it personal and I don't get offended. Ironically, speaking of reason and emotions, getting offended is an emotion and that implies insecurity, in my opinion. 

I'm a convert, and I agree with you 100% on the mission thing. I always tell missionaries that the experience will help them in ways they will never expect.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

(I wish I could figure out how to quote all of you in one post, sorry about multi-posting, but here goes one more...)

 

 

 

It doesn't matter.  But if you really want to do it....just look at the bottom right corner of the box...to the left of the "quote" button is another button that says "Multiquote".  Click on that then keep reading and clicking on multi quote on other posts you want to respond to.  When you are read to write a response, click on that black box that says "respond to 3 posts".  

It will open up a box with all the quotes in it for you.  Try it, it's kinda cool!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love when non members think we are all a bunch of idiots. One guy was bashing us (LDS) left and right and I asked him bluntly, "So all the doctors and Ph.Ds who are LDS are just idiots too, huh?" He said "Well, no thinking person could be LDS." I asked him to read my masters thesis and he couldn't get by the first page. Too many "big words".

Last year a group of researchers released a controversial study. According to the study, children who were raised in "religious" households had a harder time telling fantasy from reality than children raised in "secular" households. A rather militant atheist (even other atheists can't always stand her) was on another message board I go to crowing about how this was "proof" that religious believers are stupid.

Thanks to some people on a third board where this was being discussed, I found a link to the actual write-up.

The summary you often see at the beginning of research papers and study results? I got as far as reading that before realizing that the study was so shot through with "Wait... what?!" moments as to make the results invalid. A sample size of only 66 kids (you could get a statistically reliable set of samples, but really...). Presuming that "secular" meant "sent their kids to public school" while "religious" meant "home-school / private school". Using a New Testament story in the experiment, thereby limiting the study's applicability to Christians (and, in fact, the researchers admitted that they excluded six Jewish children from the study because of it). Et cetra.

I wouldn't even accept such a paper from a student, let alone professionals.

Most people I spoke with agreed with me that the study needed to be redone, even those who were willing to accept the small sample size.

The militant atheist in question responded by telling me that as a "non-scientist" I had "no right" to question the study. She kept at this mantra even after other posters - including a few atheists - admitted that my background in marketing research made it very clear I knew what I was talking about. And when I mentioned the third board, she responded by going over to said board and quite literally cussing out everyone who panned the study.

Yeah.

Before the recession hit, $50K / year was entry-level pay for some of the positions I could have taken with my MBA and my work / volunteer experience; my time as a branch finance clerk alone would have gotten me a professorship had the college I spoke to been hiring at that moment. Sadly, most of the available white-collar jobs in my area retreated when the recession hit; I had to work day labor and newspaper deliveries just to even pay tuition, and even with my being promoted to movie reviewer / stringer / columnist I'm still only making a fraction of what I could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

What, in Brooks' opinion, does it mean for a person to "struggle with the doctrine yet still practice their faith" if the person actually rejects key faith practices as well as teachings

 

 

I don't know a lot about Brooks, but my thoughts on this idea . . .

First, it will vary depending on the person.  It sounds like you are thinking of the John Dehlin types...and in that case I understand why you are skeptical.

 

But for me...it could also mean someone that is struggling with their testimony, but it still practicing their faith as a way to plant a seed as Alma said.  For a time, that was me.  I don't want to hash all that out again, so in a nutshell, I was struggling to believe in God (strange since I was also so angry with Him at the time...how can you be angry with someone who doesn't exist, LOL)  I decided that since there is no proof that God exists or that He doesn't, I get to make the choice what I will believe.  I wanted to believe in God and Christ.  I wanted that to be true.  So I decided to continue acting as if it were and see how that went--experiment on the word as Alma said.  I wanted to try and rekindle my testimony (and I did in time).  

 

Over the years, I've had friends who are homosexual.  Josh Weed is one of them.  He is such a wonderful example of this.  It was so hard for him as a teenager reading The Miracle of Forgivness (pretty harsh words there about homosexuals), and yet he kept practicing his faith.  And he was blessed spiritually for it.  He is one of the most spiritual people I know.

 

Those are just two examples.  My concern is that people who have faith struggles are afraid to tell anyone lest they be judged for being less faithful, sinners or whatever.  Every time I talk about my faith crisis with other LDS people, I feel hesitation, that fear of being judged.  But I do it anyway because I am a sucker for punishment   I hope to help others who may be struggling.  

 

One of my friends used to be LDS and is now Atheist.  She didn't even tell me about her faith crisis until she had made up her mind.  I've always thought that was so unfortunate.  If we didn't fear speaking to one another about these things (very real fears about very real judgments . . . ) we might not lose so many members.  

 

That's what I meant when I said I agreed with Joanna.  I haven't read her books, but I've heard her on a podcast once or twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all! I've posted here a few times about my journey possibly converting from Catholicism to LDS. I've been studying with the missionaries, attending church and ward events, and praying. A lot. I still have many roadblocks to baptism, but one issue I'm worried about is a seeming reluctance to intellectual query within the church...

Scripture tells us repeatedly that we are to love God with all our heart, might, MIND, and strength. (emphasis added) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/4.2?lang=eng#1

 

God depicts himself (and his servants) as one who reasons with and persuades mankind. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/1.18?lang=eng#17 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45.10?lang=eng#9 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/eccl/7.25?lang=eng#24 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/12.7?lang=eng#6  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.41?lang=eng#40

 

As John said, "In the beginning was the Word." Greek="logos", a cognate from which our English language gets the word "logic".

 

My father taught me decades back in missionary training classes that every investigator and member eventually needs three kinds of conversion for lasting activity in the church, social conversion (finding a support group of friends in the church), intellectual conversion https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.118?lang=eng#117, and spiritual conversion.The latter conversion, the spiritual, is the most important, and is the core objective, but even that important element can slip if the other two aren't firmly in place to help shield, strengthen, and protect a newly-emerging spiritual conviction. As my father described it, it's a three-legged stool, where all three legs are important.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by hagoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to present another side to this anti intellectualism accusation.

 

Priest, Pastors, and leaders of Catholic and of churches usually all have some kind of formal training.  These people have chosen to dedicate their lives to church leadership and have received all the training and instruction the Church requires before someone can be a leader of their faith.  This usually requires training in theology/philosophy thus pushing all these leaders into the Intellectualism by training (if not be desire) category.

 

The LDS church has a lay ministry.  Its leader's training consists of what every member is taught and what they pick up on their own through their own effort and experiences.  This means the leaders if the LDS church don't have the same tendency toward Intellectualism as you will find in other faiths.

 

This means that if you take a philosophical/theological question to the leaders of another faith, chances are that leader will be able engage with you on that level.  You take that same question to a LDS leader and chances are that leader will not be able to engage with you on that level, chances are he is going to have to punt it to a more basic level to respond.

 

This is an inherent difference between the faiths.  And generally speaking as goes the leadership so goes the rest of the faith. (for all religions in many cases)

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hagoth, your 3-legged stool example is how I've always experienced faith, thank you for that. And thanks for the D&C links--those are very helpful in remembering that heavenly logic is on a level that I cannot understand as a human. That requires humility, and I know my pride gets in the way of that. Something more to pray on.

 

estradling75, you make a good point. I think that my coming from a non-LDS background, I tend to assume that religions all have that theological background and desire/ability to discuss the deeper issues. Someone mentioned in this thread that I'm not questioning doctrine at this point, but culture of the church. I have a fear holding me back that I won't fit in, that I'll question at some point in my life (I always do in matters of faith), and that I'll keep thinking like a Catholic (even though I don't ascribe to Catholic doctrine). Oy vey.

Edited by Catlick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share