Interesting article on the dangers of intellectualism

For the people who don’t read entire articles, here’s the guts of the article,in my view. The emphasis is mine to highlight the four main points of the author.

In their attempts to reconcile Mormonism (a culture which appeals strongly to social standing) with the culture of critical discourse (a culture which forbids any such appeal to social standing), intellectuals find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue priesthood authority in many ways. They will keep revelation but they will make it a democratized and personal kind of revelation. They will keep prophetic statements but only as a secondary source to the celestial dataset which we all have access to. They will keep the canonical scriptures but will insist that the books be interpreted in light of their own historical findings. They will keep their priesthood leaders as long as they are fallible, just like everybody else. All of these things serve to shift attention away from the social standing of who is speaking and toward the content of what is spoken in order to keep debates and arguments open rather than close them down. Additionally, just as intellectuals within the church find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue priesthood authority, they also find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue their efforts at doing so.

Here is my reaction to these points:

1. They will keep revelation but they will make it a democratized and personal kind of revelation

Speaking personally — yes — but it’s a coping mechanism after repeated leader behavior convinced me their revelation was primarily directed at preserving the interests of the church.

Also, when I saw how willing some leaders are to sacrifice principles and individuals for the good of the organization, the only way I could reconcile the tension was by putting my life back onto my own clock. When I decided that what I thought about church matters was just as important as the leaders’ statements, I was able to stay in the church at an attendance level, and support my family in the process.

Also, don’t we teach people to confirm what they hear at church so they have their own testimony, and aren’t we encouraged to “study it out in our minds”? As the PBS.org presentation on the Mormons once said, JS’s attitude toward revelation was like Henry Ford’s attitude toward the Model T — everyone should have one.

2. They will keep their priesthood leaders as long as they are fallible, just like everybody else.

Isn’t this a healthy attitude? Isn’t it true? Aren’t leaders fallible? Did we not disavow the priesthood ban, even after the oft-quoted statement that prophets will never lead the church astray? Have we not had to excommunicate local leaders for misuse of church resources or even adultery in a few cases? Haven’t well-meaning, poorly trained Bishops been brought up on charges of witness-tampering? Don’t priesthood leaders sometimes give bad advice? As soon as you put these people on pedestals, you risk your testimony when they make mistakes. It’s better to see them for what they are — well-meaning, generally moral people who are capable of mistakes just like anyone else. If you start with the premise that leaders are not perfect, when they make mistakes, you can still believe in the church.

3.They will keep the canonical scriptures but will insist that the books be interpreted in light of their own historical findings

I don’t see this as part of my mental practices. But doesn’t the church do this to justify many of its own practices? They resort to interpreting policies and habits in the context of the culture of the time — just read the article on the priesthood disavowal. I see no reason why church members trying to interpret history might do the same thing.

4. They will keep prophetic statements but only as a secondary source to the celestial dataset which we all have access to

Again, isn’t this what we are taught to do — to seek our own testimony, to not live on borrowed light? This isn’t to say that prophet’s words are to be relegated to the same level as the latest popular author. They are still important to consider… But isn’t it wise to act on the basis of your own commitment and belief after you seriously consider what the prophets say in light of your own unique circumstances? And didn’t Dallin H. Oakes say that leaders teach general principles; if individuals think they have an exception, they should work it out with the Lord? Don’t our own teachings put the individual’s brain, spirituality and integrity in the top drawer?

I would like to also respond to this statement:

All of these things serve to shift attention away from the social standing of who is speaking and toward the content of what is spoken in order to keep debates and arguments open rather than close them down

He implies the sole motive of the intellectual is to keep the debate going. Not so. I am an intellectual, but I learned to rely on some of the practices above as coping mechanisms, not as sources of amusement. And my reliance on these methods was only after local leaders behaved in repeated ways that made it impossible to reconcile the “final authority” view with their behavior. Until then, I was quite comfortable as an intellectual in the church accepting the final authority view, and most of the time, simply doing what I was told.

Too bad we still have articles like these that seek to marginalize certain groups in the church with across the board statements — in this case, painting all intellectuals with the same brush.

I see this article as an extension of JS’s apparent dislike for professors and “learned men” who during the time, were a privileged few and who likely carried themselves with a certain arrogance toward the less educated, like JS.

I am not anti-intellectual, but (there’s always a but, they say!) certainly some aspects of intellectualism are not helpful.

Intellectuals, and philosophers, can sometimes spend too much time on what is not important and not enough on what is of practical importance IMHO.

I was once asked by someone why I shied away from some types of philosophy. My answer was simple – I don’t derive any happiness from reading it (no enjoyment), it doesn’t particularly enlarge my experience or knowledge, it doesn’t improve my life or society (no benefit) and the search in some of these things is unanswerable and endless.

Searching is a good thing, as long as you don’t spend so much time wandering that you walk right past what you’re looking for.

Some aspects of intellectualism are excellent, and increase our knowledge, but as anyone who has any contact with academia knows, it can be ridiculously narrow and unintentionally funny. I find some of the titles of academic papers, for example, beyond parody.

As for pseudo-intellectualism, we certainly have a lot of that in the church. 😆

The one anti-intellectual thought I sometimes have is that intellectuals are some of the best & brightest among us. If the gospel is for everyone, then there is no real benefit to being intellectual; in fact, it’s as much a curse as a blessing. It’s always tough to be the smartest person in the room. So the benefit of the gospel is something else, not something that only intellectuals can appreciate. And that universality must mean that there’s more to life than pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. Sometimes the common man is superior in health, happiness, and wisdom.

The one anti-intellectual thought I sometimes have is that intellectuals are some of the best & brightest among us. If the gospel is for everyone, then there is no real benefit to being intellectual; in fact, it’s as much a curse as a blessing. It’s always tough to be the smartest person in the room. So the benefit of the gospel is something else, not something that only intellectuals can appreciate. And that universality must mean that there’s more to life than pursuit of wisdom and knowledge. Sometimes the common man is superior in health, happiness, and wisdom.

I agree Hawkgrrrl. I think there’s one thing worse than being the smartest person in the room – thinking you are the smartest person in the room when you’re not.

And of course, we all know what happens on Star Trek when someone out-evolves the rest. Pretty soon they’re all power-mad and crazy, controlling the ship or playing weird games on their inferiors.

Having not read the article and shooting from the hip (this is my list)…

Dangers of intellectualism:

1) Forgetting how to communicate to the common man (this one occurred to me after skimming the article ) You don’t have to flower up your speech to prove to people that you are intellectual. I tossed a dart at the article and hit:

Whereas the tension between intellectualism and prophecy can be dissolved within the practical difficulties of vetting speech acts, the deeper tension which exists between intellectualism and priesthood lies in the fact that these are two very different and incompatible ways of vetting or legitimizing speech acts.

I freely admit that I’ve struggled all my life with reading comprehension, it takes me longer than most. Still… is there not a simpler way to get a point across? Maybe it’s just me.

What good is all that intellectualism doing anyone if the intellectual can’t communicate their ideas in a way that they can be heard? If you want to communicate it helps to speak the same language. It may all come back to “know your audience” and I’m just not their audience, I do not consider myself particularly intellectual.

2) This one goes with the first. Pride. Does pride make the intellectual believe that they are somehow better than others? Can pride blind an intellectual to someone else’s perspective? Sometimes it’s more about perceived truth than actual facts.

Pride in knowledge might cause the intellectual to run the risk of having a closed mind because they have already researched an issue and arrived at the answer, not an answer.

Edit:

3) Sometimes I feel like I’m painting myself into a corner spiritually. If the intellectual discounts dreams, promptings, feelings, peep stones, visions, etc. what does god have left to communicate with the intellectual? Is this what it means by “my spirit will no longer strive?” If intellectualism is all that is left can intellectualism alone nourish the spirit?

Personal story:

When I started as a sales rep in the Educational Publishing world, I dealt mostly with Superintendents, Curriculum Directors, Technology Directors and Principles – as well as Legislators and executives at philanthropic charities with lots of money to contribute. Since I was dealing with highly-educated people in the education industry, I didn’t bother hiding my own ability to speak intellectually. I didn’t try intentionally to sound smart or intellectual, but I figured those people would respect and respond better to “proper”, educated speech – to someone who obviously valued and could speak intelligently about education.

My Regional Manager pulled me aside one day and gave me some advice that made me a much better salesperson. He said, essentially:

I know you aren’t trying to show off at all, but tone down your vocabulary. Nobody wants to have to think about what you mean when they are listening to you. They want to understand it easily the first time. They don’t want to feel stupid or inferior – and anything that makes them feel that way hurts your chance at a sale, no matter how much sense you make or how much they need what you are trying to sell them.

I still slip into academic verbosity (see? ) sometimes, but I try really hard to say things as plainly as I can – and I try hard not to use long words when shorter words will work just as well. It’s not condescension at all; rather, it simply is an attempt to be understood by everyone hearing or reading what I say – even if I am trying to say something that is incredibly complex.