Mormonism Has No Good Intellectual System

[Anijen]

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?

Joseph Smith

James S. Olson

Mitt Romney

Jonathon Browning

Philo T Farnsworth

Robert B. Ingebretsen

Lester Wire

Lavell Edwards

Bronco Mendenhall

[SolarPowered]

Joseph Smith

James S. Olson

Mitt Romney

Jonathon Browning

Philo T Farnsworth

Robert B. Ingebretsen

Lester Wire

Lavell Edwards

Bronco Mendenhall

+John Moses Browning

+Orson Scott Card

I've never heard of Lavell Edwards or Bronco Mendenhall. All I was able to pull up on Google under those names were a couple football players. Who are they?

[Pahoran]

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.

That's really quite insightful. You may well be on to something there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hoops22]

I've never heard of Lavell Edwards or Bronco Mendenhall

These guys may mean more to your PR department than anybody you can muster. How can you not know them?

Great guys, consummate professionals - yes. But great thinkers? Not so sure.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

I'm in awe of Aquinas; my youngest son was born on the anniversary of his death and, not coincidentally, bears the middle name Thomas.

But I don't know that the Church needs an Aquinas or an Augustine or, for that matter, a systematic theology (in the technical sense of that compound term), and I don't think we need hang our heads in shame that we've produced a Hugh Nibley. Systematic theologians don't represent the only kind (nor even, necessarily, the best or most appropriate kind) of religious reflection.

For all his brilliance, and for all the brilliance of his two summas and his other works, I tend to share St. Thomas's own opinion of those writings, famously expressed to his companion, Reginald of Piperno, near the end of Thomas's life.

P.S. -- Thomas Cahill's gratuitous slap at Mormonism was idiotic.

[maklelan]

But I don't know that the Church needs an Aquinas or an Augustine or, for that matter, a systematic theology (in the technical sense of that compound term),

I quite agree. Aquinas and the rest came along precisely because there was no prophet to reveal the truth. In a world of dialectic and rhetoric they needed some powerful thinkers to help hammer out the doctrines and remove the false ideas. In my opinion, however, they threw out the baby with the bath water. Today we have no need for this, as the principles and ordinances of the gospel have been revealed, and theological speculation does little to advance us down the road to eternal life.

[valkator]

I think these BYU articles demonstrate that the 'intellectual character' of Mormonism, as it's impacted those thinkers that follow this path or learn from its Truths directly, is quite 'good'.

Eternal Progression and the Foreknowledge of God

Civilizations in Outer Space

Thoughts on Higher-Dimensional Realms

[Son]

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?

Some remarkable people in God's eyes have been exed, by the church. Their intellect determined to be above their heads.

[urroner]

Some remarkable people in God's eyes have been exed, by the church. Their intellect determined to be above their heads.

Who are the remarkable people that have been exed by the Church, how do you know they were remarkable in God's eyes and why were they exed?

BTW, what does it mean "their intellect determined to be above their heads," were they out of their minds?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 misspelled intelligence for your sake , assuming you would not know the difference. Since you obviously donâ??t know what a â??great thinkerâ? isâ?¦

Pa Pa (Jokes on you)

[PhilipTraum]

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.

I've been under the impression that the Saints, or Joseph Smith, or the Prophets would also be part of the judgment. Am I misinformed?

[caudicus]

"Intellectualism is a danger to the church." -- Dallin H. Oaks (Quorum of the Twelve)

The greatest danger to the Mormon church comes from gays and lesbians, feminists, and intellectuals. -- Boyd K. Packer

I think the main problem with the current LDS "intellectual system" is that the only clear agenda is to create enough obscurity to provide the illusion of reasonable doubt in any given issue. The problem with this approach is this.

1) You have to discount the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge.

(This is impossible, but the belief is real in many people that science is unreliable. Many like to state that "Science cannot explain everything." And this is true. However, science can and does explain a great many things about how and why things happen. Even though it cannot explain everything, we have come a long way as a species utilizing that which we do understand. We actually use knowledge that we can acquire through scientific method to acquire more knowledge and even apply that knowledge to change the world around us.)

2) You have to create unverifiable "what ifs" to discount what reason would dictate we believe.

(An easy way for the LDS to create doubt in a situation is to say "man is flawed, and we are not always able to tell what is from a church authority, or from God." This is great from an LDS standpoint, because it allows you to suspend judgement and ignore the claims of non-believers. From a critic's standpoint, it changes nothing. It is a bad argument that doesn't prove anything or provide any insight into what did or did not happen. If anything, this just shows how unreliable any sort of revelation is, for any individual, of any religion. It supports that the LDS faith is misplaced.)

3) You have to be very careful what you say and publish, because LDS intellectuals can very easily end up in church court, facing communication.

(Ed Ashment sums it up nicely, "If one speaks out in a way the organization feels is unacceptable, the church has every right to ask them to leave.")

Even Thomas Aquinas stated that his works "were as straw" just before he decided to stop writing forever.

Intellectualism and religion are at odds with one another. It was not always so. People strived with all their hearts to prove that god existed, tried to prove how he worked. This yielded great results, but, slowly, it began to chip away at how people understood the universe. Constant revision was needed, and, eventually, science became completely at odds with the Christianity of antiquity's view of the universe as handed down to them by God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think the main problem with the current LDS "intellectual system" is that the only clear agenda is to create enough obscurity to provide the illusion of reasonable doubt in any given issue. The problem with this approach is this.

1) You have to discount the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge.

(This is impossible, but the belief is real in many people that science is unreliable. Many like to state that "Science cannot explain everything." And this is true. However, science can and does explain a great many things about how and why things happen. Even though it cannot explain everything, we have come a long way as a species utilizing that which we do understand. We actually use knowledge that we can acquire through scientific method to acquire more knowledge and even apply that knowledge to change the world around us.)

2) You have to create unverifiable "what ifs" to discount what reason would dictate we believe.

(An easy way for the LDS to create doubt in a situation is to say "man is flawed, and we are not always able to tell what is from a church authority, or from God." This is great from an LDS standpoint, because it allows you to suspend judgement and ignore the claims of non-believers. From a critic's standpoint, it changes nothing. It is a bad argument that doesn't prove anything or provide any insight into what did or did not happen. If anything, this just shows how unreliable any sort of revelation is, for any individual, of any religion. It supports that the LDS faith is misplaced.)

3) You have to be very careful what you say and publish, because LDS intellectuals can very easily end up in church court, facing communication.

(Ed Ashment sums it up nicely, "If one speaks out in a way the organization feels is unacceptable, the church has every right to ask them to leave.")

Even Thomas Aquinas stated that his works "were as straw" just before he decided to stop writing forever.

Intellectualism and religion are at odds with one another. It was not always so. People strived with all their hearts to prove that god existed, tried to prove how he worked. This yielded great results, but, slowly, it began to chip away at how people understood the universe. Constant revision was needed, and, eventually, science became completely at odds with the Christianity of antiquity's view of the universe as handed down to them by God.

Your quote from Elder Oaks misrepresents what he was saying, in my opinion. In isolation, it seems Elder Oaks is saying "do not use your intellect," or "smart people are an enemy to the Church." First, you have misquoted Elder Oaks by, in the very least, not using ellipses to indicate the sentence did not begin with the word "Intellectualism."

I've asked you about the quote before in a different thread, but I don't believe you addressed my question. What do you really think Elder Oaks meant when he said intellectuals are a danger? Second, why don't you use the entire quote; it's not too long:

"The scriptures speak of prophets as being watchmen on the tower with the responsibility to warn when an enemy approaches," Elder Oaks said in the film. "The watchmen on the tower are going to say intellectualism is a danger to the church ... and if people leave their faith behind and follow strictly where science leads them, that can be a pretty crooked path."

This is from the recent PBS documentary. It seems Elder Oaks is concerned with people leaving their faith behind, not with them seeking knowledge and increasing in "intellect."

Moreover, from a talk he delivered June 7, 1992 at BYU he discussed how some strengths can become weaknesses.

He speaks of learning:

Other illustrations of how our strengths can become our downfall concern the activity of learning.

"A desire to know is surely a great strength. A hunger to learn is laudable, but the fruits of learning make a person particularly susceptible to the sin of pride. So do the fruits of other talents and accomplishments, such as the athletic or the artistic. It is easy for the learned and the accomplished to forget their own limitations and their total dependence upon God.

Accomplishments in higher education bring persons much recognition and real feelings of self-sufficiency. But we should remember the Book of Mormon's frequent cautions not to boast in our own strength or wisdom lest we be left to our own strength or wisdom (e.g., Alma 38:11, 39:2; Helaman 4:13, 16:15). Similarly, the prophet Jacob referred to "that cunning plan of the evil one," remarking that when persons are "learned," which means that they have knowledge, "they think they are wise" (2 Nephi 9:28), which means that they think they have the capacity for the wise application of knowledge. Persons who think they are wise in this way "hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves." In that circumstance, the prophet said, "their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish" (2 Nephi 9:28). "But to be learned is good," the word of the Lord concludes, "if they hearken unto the counsels of God" (2 Nephi 9:29). "

Elder Oaks goes on to describe the danger in relying too much on God, without applying our minds:

"Another example: An unusual degree of faith in God, a genuine spiritual gift and strength, can be distorted so as to seriously detract from scholarly pursuits. I have known persons who began their academic studies with great momentum, but as time went by did not continue to invest the time they needed in their studies because they supposed they had developed such great faith that if they simply did their church work the Lord would bless them to achieve their academic objectives. In this way the supposed strength of their faith became the cause of their academic downfall. We might say to them as the Lord said to Oliver Cowdery when he failed in his efforts to translate:

Behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced. . . .

. . . You have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right. [D&C 9:5, 7

[urroner]

I've been under the impression that the Saints, or Joseph Smith, or the Prophets would also be part of the judgment. Am I misinformed?

So, do you think that when others who aren't Christ will be judging others, will they still have the same weaknesses and fragilities they had during life? Besides, who is the final judge? Do you honestly think that God will let somebody go to Heaven or Hell who didn't deserve it or am I mistaken to believe that you do?

[LifeOnaPlate]

One more thought, on your "3-point System of Anti-Intellectualism," which I assume may be forthcoming in a new edition of the Gospel Doctrine manual:

You begin by saying "1) You have to discount the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge," and then say it is "impossible," to do so; but then go on to concede that science is in fact limited, though there are many excellent discoveries, etc.

The very scientific method demands that information and conclusions may be unreliable, and are subject to change. Go pick up a biology book from the 1940s.

Your second point: "2) You have to create unverifiable "what ifs" to discount what reason would dictate we believe." Wow, you just described some apologetic, as well as anti-mormon, or anti-God or anti-religion rhetoric. I hope you realize the hypocrisy. This is the substance of much of the anti-mormon writings I have read.

As to your 3rd point, you have the freedom to publish or say whatever you want with no censure. when someone is in a position of influence, it is their responsibility to build, not destroy faith in the gospel.

[PhilipTraum]

I think the main problem with the current LDS "intellectual system" is that the only clear agenda is to create enough obscurity to provide the illusion of reasonable doubt in any given issue.

I think that's a powerful point. The church is (natch) only able to insist on things that are unfalsifiable. My roommate had said to me that it's good to explore other ideas and possibilities only so far as it doesn't harm your faith. I'm suspicious of this methodology. Even the method of intuitive verification (Moroni's Challenge) is understood in a way that precludes the possibility of a "negative" answer. When I prayed after reading the BoM and didn't get any "answer," I was depressed for a few days, but then ultimately decided that the good feelings I had had while reading certain passages were sufficient. I believe President McKay had had a similar experience, and he determined that just continuing in the work would be a means in and of itself.

The problem with this approach is this.

1) You have to discount the reliability of how mankind gathers and tests knowledge.

(This is impossible, but the belief is real in many people that science is unreliable. Many like to state that "Science cannot explain everything." And this is true. However, science can and does explain a great many things about how and why things happen.

I have no problem with being skeptical about certain forms of materialistic so-called "empiricism," in that it can be a sort of dogma of it's own, though I think it's somewhat hypocritical to denounce it in favor of another, perhaps less-reliable set of assertions.

[Mark Beesley]

I have often wondered when or if mormonism will produce great masters of mormon thought and doctrine.

How much of Orson Pratt's works have you read? Arguably one of the most brilliant Americans of the 19th Century.

[Pahoran]

I think the main problem with the current LDS "intellectual system" is that the only clear agenda is to create enough obscurity to provide the illusion of reasonable doubt in any given issue.

So, IOW, you project your own vanishingly low level of honesty onto others.

Got it.

Snip the rest of your waffle.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Obiwan]

The Church "already" produces the great intellects of the ages, and to a much higher degree than anything else.

The scholarship found at FAIR FARMS, and a 1000 & 1 books is way above the scholarship in quality found on any anti-website or most books and materials.

I mean, I've seen many times even the average leader in the Church at the Ward level, produce some excellent scholared material.

[PhilipTraum]

By your interpretation of Elder Oaks's comment on intellectualism, he also believes all of the things listed above as being a "danger to the church," and a danger to the individual. Taken in context, Elder Oaks's counsel is wise and well-needed; but twisted and mentioned in a random signature as though it was the be-all-end-all of elder Oaks's convictions is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.

Thanks for clarifying that quote! Makes a little more sense now.

So, do you think that when others who aren't Christ will be judging others, will they still have the same weaknesses and fragilities they had during life? Besides, who is the final judge? Do you honestly think that God will let somebody go to Heaven or Hell who didn't deserve it or am I mistaken to believe that you do?

Since this seems to be a rhetorical or hypothetical question, my main concern is not who will be judging per se but rather what people will be judged for. Using the Church's system, I would have to assume that holding to the church's values of believing in "correct principals," commitment to family life, marriage, and submitting to authority and protocol are more important than things such as creativity, intellect, bravery, physical prowess and health, ect.

[PhilipTraum]

The Church "already" produces the great intellects of the ages, and to a much higher degree than anything else.

The scholarship found at FAIR FARMS, and a 1000 & 1 books is way above the scholarship in quality found on any anti-website or most books and materials.

Perhaps if you looked outside of purely polemic material?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that's a powerful point. The church is (natch) only able to insist on things that are unfalsifiable. My roommate had said to me that it's good to explore other ideas and possibilities only so far as it doesn't harm your faith. I'm suspicious of this methodology. Even the method of intuitive verification (Moroni's Challenge) is understood in a way that precludes the possibility of a "negative" answer. When I prayed after reading the BoM and didn't get any "answer," I was depressed for a few days, but then ultimately decided that the good feelings I had had while reading certain passages were sufficient. I believe President McKay had had a similar experience, and he determined that just continuing in the work would be a means in and of itself.

I have no problem with being skeptical about certain forms of materialistic so-called "empiricism," in that it can be a sort of dogma of it's own, though I think it's somewhat hypocritical to denounce it in favor of another, perhaps less-reliable set of assertions.

Your experience with the Book of mormon reminded me of Oliver Cowdery right off the bat. When he sought further witness that what he and Joseph were doing was of God, the revelation given said :

22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness,[as you did when taking on Moroni's promise] cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things. [Likewise, you cast your mind upon the night you read and felt the influence of the Spirit. As you read God isn't going to wait until the end to verify the truth of what you read; the Holy Ghost attends truth whenever we are receptive. Thus, you felt the spirit earlier than the final chapter.]

23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness?

[caudicus]

What about Boyd K PAcker's quote from his speech of "Three Dangers to the Church?"

How poorly did I misrepresent that quote?

Look. the problem the church has is the lack of direct evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If it was there, then you wouldn't have to resort to working backwards. But it's not.

Let's look at some popular debates.

Book of Abraham...

Clearly it reads other than what is written in the Pearl of Great Price. We are offered up the "dual meaning" theory.

Kinderhook Plates....

Clearly, they were a fraud. Yet Joseph Smith made a remarkable revelation.

"I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found . He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." ( History of the Church vol. 5, p. 372)

First Vision Accounts...

Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [it should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]

" The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [it should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]

Changes to the Book of Mormon...

The United Order of Enoch...

The Blessings of Jacob...

and so many more

If it was just one or two things... I probably would have bought it. In the end, it is just too much controversy. Too many doubts are created, and too poor of excuses are made.

I have yet to see anything really concrete pose as a defense.

Don't get me wrong, as both sides are often left grasping at straws, but that is the nature of debating a mormon intellectual... their goal is to create doubt, and not prove anything one way or the other.

They have the problem of offering explanations without stepping on the authorities' toes. Little to nothing of these apologetics have become official doctrine, because if the church takes a stand on anything, it opens itself up to vulnerability. So, even if you prove an apologetic wrong, you don't prove the church wrong.

If you want to focus in on some detail to prove it wrong, you will be faced with the fact that "not everyone believes that" whether it is doctrine or not.

If it is doctrine, then they can always say man is fallible, and prophets do not always speak directly from God.

So the crux of the LDS debate lies in knowing when a man is speaking from God, or when he is speaking as a fallible man. I have started a topic on this several times and have yielded nothing.

The reality is that there is no way to know if a man is speaking from God, or as a fallible man. However, if you take into consideration the massive amount of people who claim to have access to divine revelation through religious experience throughout the world and throughout history... the vast majority do not believe the LDS church is true.

[Calm]

Thanks for clarifying that quote! Makes a little more sense now.

Why were you using a quote for your argument that you hadn't looked up to see the context for to make sure you were using it correctly?

[LifeOnaPlate]

What about Boyd K PAcker's quote from his speech of "Three Dangers to the Church?"

How poorly did I misrepresent that quote?

Look. the problem the church has is the lack of direct evidence to support the Book of Mormon. If it was there, then you wouldn't have to resort to working backwards. But it's not.

Let's look at some popular debates.

Book of Abraham...

Clearly it reads other than what is written in the Pearl of Great Price. We are offered up the "dual meaning" theory.

Kinderhook Plates....

Clearly, they were a fraud. Yet Joseph Smith made a remarkable revelation.

First Vision Accounts...

Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [it should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]

" The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [it should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]

Changes to the Book of Mormon...

The United Order of Enoch...

The Blessings of Jacob...

and so many more

If it was just one or two things... I probably would have bought it. In the end, it is just too much controversy. Too many doubts are created, and too poor of excuses are made.

I have yet to see anything really concrete pose as a defense.

Don't get me wrong, as both sides are often left grasping at straws, but that is the nature of debating a mormon intellectual... their goal is to create doubt, and not prove anything one way or the other.

They have the problem of offering explanations without stepping on the authorities' toes. Little to nothing of these apologetics have become official doctrine, because if the church takes a stand on anything, it opens itself up to vulnerability. So, even if you prove an apologetic wrong, you don't prove the church wrong.

If you want to focus in on some detail to prove it wrong, you will be faced with the fact that "not everyone believes that" whether it is doctrine or not.

If it is doctrine, then they can always say man is fallible, and prophets do not always speak directly from God.

So the crux of the LDS debate lies in knowing when a man is speaking from God, or when he is speaking as a fallible man. I have started a topic on this several times and have yielded nothing.

The reality is that there is no way to know if a man is speaking from God, or as a fallible man. However, if you take into consideration the massive amount of people who claim to have access to divine revelation through religious experience throughout the world and throughout history... the vast majority do not believe the LDS church is true.

None of this concerns or excuses your quoting of Elder Oaks out of context; yet you continue forward, deceiving. That post is nothing but a red herring.

I have responded quite heavily in your "how do you know" thread, and you never answered the direct question I asked you twice, in bold print.

Also, where is your scientific proof that revelation is not real?