Anti-Intellectualism And The Church

[mfbukowski]

[media=]

It always amazes me that for a guy so well versed in things Mormon and Jewish, that your tastes could be so ...catholic.

[volgadon]

It always amazes me that for a guy so well versed in things Mormon and Jewish, that your tastes could be so ...catholic.

Well, he did write the Vatican Rag... =)

[mfbukowski]

Well, he did write the Vatican Rag... =)

BOOOOO! You are just evil!

This generation has no one like him.

[cinepro]

They treated the ones that survived as heroes, the ones whose blood turned to soda pop in space or worse were kept from the public eye. In America we were transparent, so that if we cooked an astronaut either at launch or in space, everybody saw it on TV.

Check your data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

[Stone holm]

Check your data...

http://en.wikipedia....s_and_incidents

The article merely dismisses unconfirmed Soviet cosmonaut deaths in space.

[tagriffy]

I think there may be a pendulum effect that goes on in society and in the Church, not sure how one would measure it. It may be a natural safety check that the Lord has built into both society and the Church. Intellectuals thrive on debate and pushing the envelope, so the more conservative element may be there to pull society back from the brink and this overcompensates and pushes society too far in the other direction, which is then followed by a creative burst. If I am correct, then we may be at the conservative end of the swing and commencing a swing back towards allowing more speculative thought. Mormons on average tend to be better educated than their peers in other American Christian sects -- so we would expect to see the pendulum being in motion more rapidly, I think. The pendulum appeared to swing towards more intellectual tolerance under President McKay and may have reversed course under President Joseph Fielding Smith...where it went from there I think it might be dangerous to the thread to speculate.

Ideally, it would be measured by poll data, etc. That isn't possible the further back one goes, so they would have to use secondary measures, e.g., what type of publications were popular at a given time.

I agree the conservative swing has just about run its course. I don't know if the pendulum is quite ready to swing back yet, though. I haven't had my ear to the ground much in the last several years.

[Stone holm]

Ideally, it would be measured by poll data, etc. That isn't possible the further back one goes, so they would have to use secondary measures, e.g., what type of publications were popular at a given time.

I agree the conservative swing has just about run its course. I don't know if the pendulum is quite ready to swing back yet, though. I haven't had my ear to the ground much in the last several years.

Not sure you could go by popular publications. Perhaps one can only perceive such things from several decades distance. Sometimes the swing is so rapid as to be culturally violent.

[DBMormon]

I have noted elsewhere that there is an element in the Church which waxes and wanes at times which tends to attack intellectualism, scientific inquiry, and secular thought altogether. The question I have in my mind is not so much whether this element is correct in their beliefs, as to why the waxing and waning of this element occurs in a Church which is so hierarchial. Comments?

That is because the Mantle is far greater then the intellect and just because it is true, doesn't make it useful. Those are my thoughts anyhow!

[thesometimesaint]

Just make sure that that mantle doesn't become a yoke to our lack of intellect.

[Stone holm]

That is because the Mantle is far greater then the intellect and just because it is true, doesn't make it useful. Those are my thoughts anyhow!

We talking about fireplace mantles, the mantle of the prophet?

[tagriffy]

Not sure you could go by popular publications. Perhaps one can only perceive such things from several decades distance. Sometimes the swing is so rapid as to be culturally violent.

True, going by popular publications would require a lot of caution.

[Stone holm]

True, going by popular publications would require a lot of caution.

One might go by literacy level of the population, or perhaps what news channel the majority of the people are watching.

[thesometimesaint]

One might go by literacy level of the population, or perhaps what news channel the majority of the people are watching.

The mantle talk was in 1981. The big 3, ABC, CBS, NBC, had the vast majority of news channel viewers

[Stone holm]

The mantle talk was in 1981. The big 3, ABC, CBS, NBC, had the vast majority of news channel viewers

Well if that is currently true of the big three, then I suppose we can safely say based on that the pendulum has turned -- or were you talking about back in 1981?

[tagriffy]

One might go by literacy level of the population, or perhaps what news channel the majority of the people are watching.

The latter is possible today, but wouldn't be before television came around. I'm not sure how literacy level would be helpful in determining how much anti-intellectualism was prevalent at a given time.

[Stone holm]

The latter is possible today, but wouldn't be before television came around. I'm not sure how literacy level would be helpful in determining how much anti-intellectualism was prevalent at a given time.

Well I could connect the dots for you, but don't want to get the topic locked

[Robert F. Smith]

This is true enough, even for American society as a whole. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that the ascendency of one side or the other has waxed and waned over time. I would still be interested to see how well the Church's periods compare to that of American society as a whole.

Might make an excellent master's thesis project.

Such a project should naturally take careful note of the counterbalancing efforts which have taken place in those instances where it seemed like one side or the other had too much influence. In such instances, for over a century now, the First Presidency has taken action to effect a rebalance or reset, even though the general membership has normally been oblivious to such actions. Hari Seldon lives!

[Stone holm]

My thought is that it waxes and wanes for the same reason anti-intellectualism waxes and wanes in American society as a whole--the perception of some kind of threat from intellectual circles. It would be interesting to see how well the Church's anti-intellectual periods tracks with the rest of American society.

My speculation is that the Church lags behind in the general American swings by about forty years, which helps give us a peculiar flavour because we are slightly out of synch at any particular point in time.

[thesometimesaint]

Well if that is currently true of the big three, then I suppose we can safely say based on that the pendulum has turned -- or were you talking about back in 1981?

The pendulum has swung back and forth generations now. I can't say if we've hit the apex of the direction of swing, or not.

[Stone holm]

The pendulum has swung back and forth generations now. I can't say if we've hit the apex of the direction of swing, or not.

Been reading "David O. McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism", how accurate is that tome considered? It kind of leaves me with the impression that the pendulum kind of quivered a lot during Pres. McKay's presidency and then swung hard towards anti-intellectualism under Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee before perhaps turning in the other direction again under President Kimball. Have been trying to fathom to what extent it went into stasis after Pres. Kimball.

[Calm]

Just a quick book note:

Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005. xx + 490 pp., with appendix, bibliography, and index. $29.95.

Claire Middlemiss served as personal secretary to David O. McKay from 1935 until he died in 1970. Shortly after she started working for Elder McKay, she began keeping a diary of his daily activities that eventually ran some forty thousand typescript pages. These diaries form the basis of this book and provide both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Elder McKay apparently did not keep a diary himself. Its weakness is that David O. McKay is seen through the eyes of Middlemiss, whose vision, arguably, is not always 20/20. Her admiration for her subject is obvious, and her portrait is perhaps more flattering than one would expect from an objective chronicler. In addition to the Middlemiss records, the authors conducted interviews with many individuals who participated in the events recounted. Although they do a fine job in most cases, some interviews with some critical individuals are missing.

If the reader is looking for a conventional biography of President McKay, he or she is in for a disappointment. Very little is revealed about his personal life and his relationship with members of his family. Instead, the authors have chosen a topical approach with sixteen chapters focused on such topics as free agency and tolerance; blacks, civil rights, and the priesthood; correlation and church administration; the education system; temple building; and politics and the church. Some may find this approach cumbersome and would have preferred a more chronological format. However, addressing major areas of focus seems to work well overall.

The prophet comes across as a very complex individual who was prepared to address complex issues. For instance, he was upset when Elder Joseph Fielding Smith published Man: His Origin and Destiny and when Bruce R. McConkie published Mormon Doctrine. His concern with the former was that, among other things, the book was not preapproved and that it presented a view on evolution beyond what the Lord had revealed. He also felt that people would have difficulty separating Joseph Fielding Smith, senior apostle, from Joseph Fielding Smith, the author of the book. Elder McConkie's book raised similar concerns, as well as a fundamental question regarding the book's title, President McKay's position being that only the president of the church can declare doctrine. Prince also discusses the priesthood being withheld from blacks. The prophet's position was that the ban was a matter of policy rather than doctrine, but that the practice was so set that a revelation would be required to change it, and no revelation came to him during his administration.

President McKay's secretary assumed the role of chief of staff, particularly during the latter years, and effectively controlled who had access to the prophet and who did not. Those who did not would often make end runs around Middlemiss through one of the president's sons. It all makes for a most intriguing story.

The book itself is very well crafted and nicely bound. The color plates are beautiful and include seldom seen portraits of David O. McKay, Stephen L Richards, and J. Reuben Clark Jr. by Arnold Friberg. Reportedly, the authors declined royalties if the University of Utah Press would produce a quality book selling at a reasonable price. Both objectives are met quite nicely.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=578

If you do a search of the bloggernacle, I believe there are a number of blogs commenting on the value of the book....generally very positive, IIRC

[thesometimesaint]

Been reading "David O. McKay: The Rise of Modern Mormonism", how accurate is that tome considered? It kind of leaves me with the impression that the pendulum kind of quivered a lot during Pres. McKay's presidency and then swung hard towards anti-intellectualism under Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee before perhaps turning in the other direction again under President Kimball. Have been trying to fathom to what extent it went into stasis after Pres. Kimball.

I can't say that any President of the Church was/is an Anti-Intellectual. To me the very idea of anti-intellectualism is anathema to my religion. But God will reward us according to the desires of our hearts. Yikes.

Edited June 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

I can't say that any President of the Church was/is an Anti-Intellectual. To me the very idea of anti-intellectualism is anathema to my religion. But God will reward us according to the desires of our hearts. Yikes.

Hm, maybe not -- but I bet if you do a search of the word "intellectualism" on some Mormon sites that you might want to reconsider that...

[thesometimesaint]

Hm, maybe not -- but I bet if you do a search of the word "intellectualism" on some Mormon sites that you might want to reconsider that...

We believe that men will be rewarded by the intents of their hearts. I am much like the Apostle Paul in that I do things that I know I shouldn't, and don't do the things I know I should. But I keep repenting and hope the Lord is generous with me.

Mormons are no different than any other group. We have some Intellectuals, some Anti-Intellectuals, and everything in between. But for me and my house it is good to be learned if it helps us to better follow the counsels of God.