Close Topic Options

Lds Intellectuals - Page 5

Thanks for the Clarification. I appreciate that.
If I am hearing you correctly. (and please correct me if I am wrong.) That an "intellectual" is someone who seeks knowledge (what type of knowledge) and does not apply it towards wisdom. Thus their knowledge becomes an end to the means.
I guess I still am having a hard time understanding how sin is related to intellectualism. From my view, just because we have a knowledge its a another ball all together as to use it to deter from sin. So many other things in my mind come into play like environment, family life, addictions, self-esteem, lack of power, personality, attitude, perception, emotions to name a few play a role in our in ablility to use our knowledge in a form of wisdom. To get from point a (which is knowledge) to point z (which is wisdom) our knowledge must have to pass points b-x which are the things mentioned above that influence, change, and manipulate our knowledge and ability to use as wisdom. I know some great LDS with lots of knowledge as this posts describes, but their wisdom is affected by their emotions, environment, self-esteem. Thus applying there great knowledge to wisdom is hard for them, due to these conditions. One such person I know had his second anointing done in the temple, and struggled with that great knowledege to create it into wisdom. I think many people struggle with this. That is my perspective at least.

In regard to other types of knowledge like emotional, personal experiences, and spiritual understanding/ experiences, do you feel that intellectuals tend to not respect this kind of knowledge or shy away from it? Are they strictly concerned and exclusive to knowledge that comes from reasoning. Or would an intellectual appreciate this knowledge but not apply it as well. For example, If someone has a great spiritual experience (what ever that may be) and does not apply it to his life, I.e turn it into wisdom. Would this be a case of "intellectualism"? I think of Lamon and Lemuel who had some pretty interesting experiences with other types of knowledge other then reason and they failed to have wisdom. I guess perhaps I am still struggling with the definition of intellectualism. Thanks for having patients with me. Any thoughts?

Intellectuals Lds

You still misunderstand me...

You are wrong. An intellectual is someone who seeks knowledge (any type of knowledge but we are talking about LDS intellectuals in this case) and have obtained a lot of study through books and research, some LDS intellectuals CAN BE WISE, and others NOT. "Wisdom" has nothing to do with whether they are intellectuals or not. Some are wise, and some are not like any regular folk. I have a problem when people refer to intellectuals as "wise" just because they have studied deeply certain topics. People confuse the term "wise" with "intelligent or smart" and they are not necessarily linked.

It's not! Sin is NOT related to intellectualism. Read what I wrote above to clarify this point, it was merely an example.

Exactly my point, knowledge does not equal "wisdom" , it is only when is applied in the right direction that becomes wisdom.

I think we have several type of intellectuals in the Church. I think all of them start right and try to seek knowledge which is a great thing but sometimes, some of them get a bit confused and they rely merely on reasoning forgetting the Spirit whatsoever. Look at the example of Dr. Quinn, a great LDS scholar, the Church loved him and it was such a respected person....until he started diving in dangerous waters and even accusing the early leaders from homosexuality but how can someone suddenly discovered such a thing? Well, he admitted now that he is an homosexual and personally I feel for him because the guy is an amazing LDS scholar, yet when his own thoughts about certain things got mixed up with his work, the Spirit left.

I do not see anything wrong with intellectuals, I think they are great thing for the Church, we have many LDS Apostles that could be considered "Intellectuals" yet when they think that what they "reason" is over what the Spirit dictates then becomes a dangerous practice. Really, is a very thin line.

Lds Intellectuals Studies Doctrine Mormon

Go back to the very first post on this topic.

I have run into several people over the years who are so intellectual that nobody else can teach them anything. In fact, one that I know recently told me that all of the Prophets and Apostles in the Church in the 1800s were mistaken in their teachings concerning plural marriage. He also told me that Isaiah 4:1 isn't talking about plural marriage, but is using the same imagery as is used in Revelation, where the women represent various churches. He didn't bother to explain these things, because I left his forum due to his horribly abusive nature.

That is the real point of this topic. We are discussing those types of people who are always learning, but never coming into wisdom, because they think that simple knowledge will save them. They replace faith with learning, and expect everyone to bow to their superior knowledge.

Page 5 Intellectuals Lds

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your time and effort to explain. If I am hearing your correctly then this post is not about intellectuals per say, but rather saints with some degree of knowledge who do not seek wisdom. Somehow as I was reading the posts it appeared to me that that distention of saints with knowledge who do not have wisdom became synominous with intellectuals. And as I understand you you are saying that there is a difference between intellectuals as that intellectuals can be both wise and intellectual as well. So perhaps then we are just talking about prideful people rather then intellectuals. Because I know a few that have little knowledge of the doctrine and feel that they know it all, and do not have wisdom. Is there a difference in your eyes? Please let me know.

As for Michael Quinn, it is sad to see him go like he did. However the situation was more complicated then that. He had trouble with the brethren over other issues way before the "gay" writings. I know that he does have a testimony of the church. He has his issues, but he still has faith in the truthfulness of the gospel. However maybe we need to make a distention between scholarly work and faith based. For example Michael Quinn's books were not a faith based book. They have nothing to do with faith. Rather he is a professional historian and was writing professionally, by professional standards, (unfortunately faith is not one of the standards.) Now I have read his works and they are good as far as history work goes. His body of knowledge and arguments is sound. However as to the truth of that knowledge that can debated on many levels. Perhaps we need to understand the distinction of knowledge and truth. (that is a big distinction that perhaps we are missing.) I am sorry if this went off topic.

I guess my next question is then why do such "intellectuals" have such a problem having wisdom? And what is the is the difference from others who do not have wisdom. Is there other obstacles, or problems like emotional trauma, self-esteem, power issues, abuse to name a few that keep one from acting in wisdom or is the central reason for their lack of wisdom is there intellect?
Nighthawk, I am sorry to hear that people were nasty towards your views and about Isaiah. I personally do not think that Isaiah 4:1 is about polygamy, but that is just one person's view, I believe that your point is well taken and is just as valid as mine, and opens a different perspective to view the LDS experience.

Intellectuals Lds

I"ve chosen to participate in this discussion as an inauguration of my involvement with the community. I certainly respect the opinions expressed, but have a bit of concern when, if I understand what has been expressed, all intellectuals are lumped into one group of 'thinkers but not doers". I"d like to offer the following items for consideration:

1. Man can not be saved in ignorance: All of the spirit children of Heavenly Father will have the opportunity to obtain a minimal threshold of knowledge necessary to recognize, but not necessarily accept, the Plan of Salvation and the Atonement of the Savior. Upon our own diligence and application, we can advance our individual progression within the plan, as indicated in D&C 130. Those people that gain more knowledge and experience in this life will be furthered along in the existences that succeed this one. Just as in the pre-existence, there is a level of performance that merits progression to the next step in the Plan. The caveat of course is application of that knowledge into real time progression. As several have already expressed, faith (knowledge) without works is detrimental to our progression.
2. Knowledge enables application: Knowledge, as well as desire, are prerequisites to application. The limited knowledge and experience of an elementary school student, even with all the desire in the world, restricts application to accommodate complex tasks and projects. Inability, lack of satisfactory performance, and likely frustration, will prevail when sufficient knowledge is not acquired. Application of this principle in a gospel setting is indicative by the organization of Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, one being the preparatory preamble to the other.

To play "holier than thou" intellectualism demonstrates ignorance by some learned Church colleagues to understand and apply basic concepts of the Gospel. But to group all intellectuals into the same basket of "non-doers of the work" is short sighted as well. There are many well read people in the Church that practice what they preach and learn. Several General Authorities are intellectual giants that have become more applicable in the Work because of their acquired knowledge, as well as desire to serve.

Lds Intellectuals

duttonger said:

No at all, this is what the original thread states:

This is exactly what you are talking about. We are talking about certain members and NOT LDS intellectuals as a "whole" but merely pointing what some of them do.

Lds Intellectuals - Page 5

Hugh Nibley is NOT one of the ones considered within this topic. Neither is Stephen E. Robinson or Bruce R. McConkie. (Keep in mind here that I disagree greatly with Elder McConkie on a huge number of subjects.)

All of these men are true intellectuals. However, none of them are proud or cocky about their knowledge.

But there are a great number of men and women (primarily men) in the Church who ARE proud and cocky about their knowledge. The example that I gave of a man who claims that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F. Smith were all mistaken when they taught that plural marriage was/is a requirement for exaltation. After all, he, this modern day intellectual, understands eternity far better than these men who were taught by Joseph Smith, all but Joseph F. Smith were given plural wives under Joseph Smith's hands, and most of them received direct revelation from God concerning this subject.

That is the type of attitude that we are talking about here.

Lds Intellectuals Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 5

I am constantly amazed at how people read between lines or even better yet speed read to the point that they skip lines and totally miss (as one misses day from night) a specific subject, theme or question in a Topic being Discussed.

Instead of answering with a Constructive message that shows they have understood what is being asked, they instead choose to give an emotional response fit for a non-believer. Ironically they are answering in the LDS Intellectuals Thread. Almost seems like a form or even a basic example of the Intellectualism that we are talking about here.