Mormonism Has No Good Intellectual System

[Joshu]

I have often wondered when or if mormonism will produce great masters of mormon thought and doctrine. Is there room in mormonism for the likes of an Augustine or an Aquinas, I have asked myself, or is the likes of Nibley the best we can do? Don't get me wrong I am not forgetting that the ancient church didn't produce either Augustine or Aquinas in the first two hundred years, for Aquinas at least it was closer to two thousand. Will we have to wait that long?

Well, I recently discovered that the good news is that we won't have to wait that long because our religion doesn't have the capacity to support the truly great thinkers. I was reading what I understand to be a very popular, informative and qualified account of the transition between the fall of Rome and the "dark ages", called

"How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. Cahill uses Augustine as a lens to examine the final days of Rome's fall with particular emphasis on the wisdom and knowledge which was lost with the death of men like Augustine, he is talking about why Augustine left Manicheism, when all of a sudden he says this,

"Like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism, it was full of assertions, but could not provide any intellectual system to nourish a great intellect".

It was really an out of place comment, I think even if I wasn't mormon I would have furrowed my brow at the seemingly out of place remark. But he raises an interesting question, can mormonism provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people?

[selek]

I have often wondered when or if mormonism will produce great masters of mormon thought and doctrine. Is there room in mormonism for the likes of an Augustine or an Aquinas, I have asked myself, or is the likes of Nibley the best we can do? Don't get me wrong I am not forgetting that the ancient church didn't produce either Augustine or Aquinas in the first two hundred years, for Aquinas at least it was closer to two thousand. Will we have to wait that long?

Well, I recently discovered that the good news is that we won't have to wait that long because our religion doesn't have the capacity to support the truly great thinkers. I was reading what I understand to be a very popular, informative and qualified account of the transition between the fall of Rome and the "dark ages", called

"How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill. Cahill uses Augustine as a lens to examine the final days of Rome's fall with particular emphasis on the wisdom and knowledge which was lost with the death of men like Augustine, he is talking about why Augustine left Manicheism, when all of a sudden he says this,

"Like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormonism, it was full of assertions, but could not provide any intellectual system to nourish a great intellect".

It was really an out of place comment, I think even if I wasn't mormon I would have furrowed my brow at the seemingly out of place remark. But he raises an interesting question, can mormonism provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people?

I almost always find that kind of rhetorical chest-thumping amusing. As though Aquinas or Augustine were representative samples of their peers, or even true fruit of the vine.

Remarkable people such as these will flourish in any setting, and greatness is an individual attribute rather the product of a particular dogma.

Cahill's comment is a smug rhetorical flourish and nothing more.

I'm also fairly confident that he knows far less about Mormonism than the thinks he does.

[jwhitlock]

Who is to say that we haven't done that already? I can think of a number of people I hold in high regard as to their thoughts and depth concerning Mormonism.

Perhaps a more appropriate question would be to ask if society would ever accept or recognize a great master coming out of Mormonism. After all, such a master would not likely conform to what society would expect. I think that we already have produced such people, but the world refuses to recognize them.

[Phillistine]

Before we get too exhuberant, I would remind us all that there is no "us" and "them". There are no specific cultures or religions that give rise to great minds. They are where you find them. And to a point, which are the greatest minds? The hero is in the eye of the beholder. I'm told that Superman wears Chuck Norris pijamas.

More importantly, who cares? Laying claim to a great mind is an ego thing that I'm certain has no relation to eternal life or veracity of religious principle. We should respect all great thinkers and worship only God.

[PhilipTraum]

To me, it seems like a system that values conformity of thought would necessarily be detrimental to the intellectual process. But this raises the question of whether reason and intellect is desirable to begin with. Christianity in general seems to devalue intellect as a means for "salvation" or "bliss," or whatever. So, if you decide to be Mormon or Christian, this may be a non-issue.

[Joshu]

I too am confident that he has only a superficial understanding of Mormonism and presumably JW.

But I was wondering that although there are some truly brilliant Mormon scholars, who among us can be compared with the great catholic thinkers?

I think Mormonism is a wonderful framework for intellectual investigation and would certainly support those among us who have the potential to become truly remarkable.

[PhilipTraum]

More importantly, who cares? Laying claim to a great mind is an ego thing that I'm certain has no relation to eternal life or veracity of religious principle.

My point exactly.

[juliann]

post deleted by me

[Phillistine]

I too am confident that he has only a superficial understanding of Mormonism and presumably JW.

But I was wondering that although there are some truly brilliant Mormon scholars, who among us can be compared with the great catholic thinkers?

I think Mormonism is a wonderful framework for intellectual investigation and would certainly support those among us who have the potential to become truly remarkable.

"Remarkable" generally means "better than the rest". The idea behind the Mormon religion is that none of us are held in higher esteem than others. We may respect one individual's abilities in certain areas of endeavor, but that certainly doesn't make them "better". While I struggle following the precepts of men such as Aquinas, Enstein, Hawking and others, I don't personally feel less important. Well, maybe I do - but I shouldn't.

Back on the subject though, is everyone ignoring Joseph Smith? There's a remarkable leader if not a remarkable intelect. If you don't believe he was a prophet then you have to admit he had a real knack for organizing religious and social principles. He was as visionary as Rodenberry. And as I recall, he was a Mormon.

[selek]

I too am confident that he has only a superficial understanding of Mormonism and presumably JW.

But I was wondering that although there are some truly brilliant Mormon scholars, who among us can be compared with the great catholic thinkers?

I think Mormonism is a wonderful framework for intellectual investigation and would certainly support those among us who have the potential to become truly remarkable.

It was my impression that the "giants" referred to in the OP were (in true human habit) not recognized until well after their deaths.

Mormonism is no more of less fertile soil for greatness than Catholicism- good men and good ideas endure.

Time is the catalyst. As you yourself pointed out, Mormonism hasn't been around all that long.

It isn't that we haven't had the time to produce great thinkers or great ideas but that the rest of Babylon hasn't had time to recognize them.

[urroner]

It was really an out of place comment, I think even if I wasn't mormon I would have furrowed my brow at the seemingly out of place remark. But he raises an interesting question, can mormonism provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people?

What defines a remarkable people? If all the people were intellectually advanced, but spiritually deprived, is that a remarkable people? If all the people were intellectually normal, but spiritually advanced and loved their neighbors with a Christ-like like, would they be a remarkable people?

[LifeOnaPlate]

This thread ignores not only the great mind of Joseph Smith and the ingenuity of Brigham Young, but also makes the claim that no great thinkers have emerged in LDS theology altogether, which is a unfounded argument to begin with.

By the way, Aquinas was the great thinker now? Yikes. If he's the prototype, I'd hate to imagine what a simpleton Christ must seem.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have often wondered when or if mormonism will produce great masters of mormon thought and doctrine. Is there room in mormonism for the likes of an Augustine or an Aquinas, I have asked myself, or is the likes of Nibley the best we can do?

What is wrong with Nibley...anyone who thinks that he was not a "great thinker" is surely laking in intellegance himself!

But he raises an interesting question, can mormonism provide intellectual fodder to develop truly remarkable people?

It already has...the 14 Presidents of the Church are the first to come to mind.

Pa Pa

[e=mc2]

I know what defines a great man. Christ said if you want to be the greatest, then be the least and servant of all. The first shall be last, etc., etc., well, then there you have it. The greatness won't be cashed in on this side of the veil, but on the other. And it will be God's judgment to decide who really did become great, and who didn't. Intellect is not the singular criteria for establishing greatness, unless, of course, you're human.........

[PhilipTraum]

"Remarkable" generally means "better than the rest". The idea behind the Mormon religion is that none of us are held in higher esteem than others. We may respect one individual's abilities in certain areas of endeavor, but that certainly doesn't make them "better". While I struggle following the precepts of men such as Aquinas, Enstein, Hawking and others, I don't personally feel less important. Well, maybe I do - but I shouldn't.

Which is a mindset that Nietzsche called "resentiment" in his critiques of the "slave morality". I kind of agree with Nietzsche -- I mean, isn't saying everyone is equally important the same as saying no one is important? Isn't that kind of go against the "law of Opposition"?

Back on the subject though, is everyone ignoring Joseph Smith? There's a remarkable leader if not a remarkable intelect. If you don't believe he was a prophet then you have to admit he had a real knack for organizing religious and social principles. He was as visionary as Rodenberry. And as I recall, he was a Mormon.

I kind of suspect that Joseph Smith was the only Mormon, at that.

[Joshu]

What is wrong with Nibley...anyone who thinks that he was not a "great thinker" is surely laking in intellegance himself!

Well Pa Pa, I have to say that I was almost offended when you said this but I guess in the end the jokes on you. Surely you're the one who is "laking in intellegance"

I know you were joking, me too.

[Joshu]

I guess I want to come away from the idea that remarkable has a moral implication. I don't suppose it necessarily means "better than" in a moral sense but perhaps only in a functional sense. I am sure that there are numerous people who are as righteous or as spiritual as Augustine but he certainly represents greatness in his ideology, theology and rhetoric. Some say that western civilization hangs on much of what Augustine had to say.

I am not saying that the LDS church doesn't have these people, I think JS is a great example of a remarkable man. But certainly he isn't the only one the church has produced.

I like the idea that the greatest are really the least among us and all that, but again that's that moral implication again. I get that everyone is qualitatively equal but what about great thinkers among us, who is the best at thinking?

[Calm]

isn't saying everyone is equally important the same as saying no one is important

Not if one realizes the conditional that a person's importance needs to be measured in context. To a family, the father may be the most important man in their life, but at work or church, he might not be. A brilliant scientist may be the most important in his field, but if unmarried, without children, no time for friends, etc. he may not be considered important in any personal way.

Everyone should have a chance to be important to someone in some way. In that we should be 'equal'. That does not lead to no one being important at all.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well Pa Pa, I have to say that I was almost offended when you said this but I guess in the end the jokes on you. Surely you're the one who is "laking in intellegance"

I know you were joking, me too.

I'm not sure English is pa pa's native tongue; way to call him out on spelling errors. An indication that form may mean more than substance to you, and speaks volumes on your intent in this thread.

Have you ever heard of Philo T. Farnsworth? Henry Eyring? [not the current apostle, though he is remarkable], James Talmage, Hugh B. Brown, B.H. Roberts, Gordon B. Hinckley [a media savant], Truman Madsen, Hugh Nibley, John Widstoe, Russel M. Neilson, etc. etc. etc.

[maklelan]

I'd like to add the name of Parley P. Pratt as one of the greatest LDS theologians.

[SolarPowered]

John Pratt is, umm... interesting...

[PhilipTraum]

Not if one realizes the conditional that a person's importance needs to be measured in context. To a family, the father may be the most important man in their life, but at work or church, he might not be. A brilliant scientist may be the most important in his field, but if unmarried, without children, no time for friends, etc. he may not be considered important in any personal way.

Everyone should have a chance to be important to someone in some way. In that we should be 'equal'. That does not lead to no one being important at all.

I agree with this in an existential sense. I think any value judgments are a purely subjective phenomena. But this doesn't seem to jibe with the Christian view that rates an object solely on it's "moral" significance. This is an apparently Nihilistic view -- a person's achievements in life, whether personal, political, or what have you mean nothing unless one happens to be "saved" before death.

For it's part, I like Mormonism better because creation-- becoming a Creator-- is viewed as the goal or "point" of salvation. But someone like Picasso, who was (arguably) a brilliant artist but in many respects a horrible human being would not be a participant in the creation, but Peter Q. Priesthood who's lived his life following protocol and buys all his music at Walmart is potentially a divine creator of worlds. This seems to me to be something of a paradox.

[Joshu]

I'm not sure English is pa pa's native tongue; way to call him out on spelling errors. An indication that form may mean more than substance to you, and speaks volumes on your intent in this thread.

Hi LifeOnaPlate, I hope you don't mind if I respond to your comment, although, to be honest I am at a loss for words. I certainly hope I didn't offend you with my little jibe at Pa Pa, and although you didn't say it explicitly, I am concerned that you feel my intent on this thread may be less than genuine, indeed perhaps nefarious.

I had attempted to be jovial with Pa Pa, I included some smiley faces and in case there was any confusion I indicated explicitly that I was joking. I had assumed that Pa Pa indicated I was lacking in intelligence in jest and I felt it appropriate to send a joke back his way. You seemed offended by the interaction and you indicated that you felt justified in making some conclusions about my intent, if not my character, I hope this explanation helps you to feel better.

Joshu

[Tarski]

I think it would be a mistake to hope that one's religion would be a grand system.

Systems have a way of being wrong and becoming dogma (think of the hegelian and marxist systems).

Better to let people live with and be exposed to all sorts of ideas.

Better to follow the "spirit" (inspiration/insight/creativity in my agnostic world view) and subject ideas to the tests of real life.

So if Mormonism has no intellectual system per se then perhaps that's a good thing.

[urroner]

For it's part, I like Mormonism better because creation-- becoming a Creator-- is viewed as the goal or "point" of salvation. But someone like Picasso, who was (arguably) a brilliant artist but in many respects a horrible human being would not be a participant in the creation, but Peter Q. Priesthood who's lived his life following protocol and buys all his music at Walmart is potentially a divine creator of worlds. This seems to me to be something of a paradox.

But, when it comes to Picasso, Peter Q. Priesthood, Molly Mormon, Mother Theresa, or Hilary Clinton, it's not us who judge them if they achieve exaltation or not, it Christ and I find that wonderful.