Healthy Responses to Objections: The Learned Man Objection

Heterodox people do this exact same thing (picking and choosing which “learned man” view to accept) all the time.

This isn’t an orthodox issue; it is a human issue.

Heterodox people do this exact same thing (picking and choosing which “learned man” view to accept) all the time.

This isn’t an orthodox issue; it is a human issue.

For me, the difference is in the unwillingness to consider ANY learned man’s argument or position. This is a church issue in my view…because of the book of Mormon casting dispersions on learned men. They often don’t even want to consider research members bring to the table in meetings, or in Sunday School lessons.

So, there is a tendency not to consider any learned man’s view — I ‘d be thrilled if there as discussion of multiple learned men’s views, and then, people picked one of them.

I think there is a strong focus on education.

I agree there is. One thing I really liked about the church at one time. Then, Gordon B Hinckley spoke about education and why the church liked it. He commented that the reason the church likes education is because it “improves people’s ability to serve in the church”….I left that meeting pretty deflated because I had assumed, all those years, that education was valued because it helped the person receiving it to earn a better living, to receive intrinsic, personal benefits such as an enriched mind, etcetera. To learn GBH had such a narrow appreciation for education, mostly as a benefit to the church, was deflating to me. Also, even if you accept that its value is to the church, It wasn’t because it enlightens us about gaps in our own practices, it’s because it helps people serve better.

There is a strong focus against “intellectualism” – but that is defined as ignoring and denying spiritual insight. Many traditional, orthodox members value Robinson, Talmage, McConkie, Maxwell, Nibley, and others largely because they were/are learned.

Agreed — seems to work very well when you have orthodox members being learned about traditional Mormon topics from an orthodox perspective. But when you have learned men commenting on church policy or operational issues drawing on non-religious scholarship, in my experience, it’s not often welcome. It’s considered “from the world”.

Everybody on either side of any argument, nearly, accepts learned people who agree with them and reject learned men who don’t agree with them.

I’m not convinced that the average person is so closed minded to only consider research that shores up their own perspective. I do think this might be more common in religious circles where there is a lot riding on central beliefs (the fact that people paid $200,000 in tithing, wife stayed home, gave up much of their leisure time, served a mission, have family involved in the church, marriage dependent on acticity). Which is a case for asserting that the problem is more prevalent in religious circles than secular circles.

Also, here is some correspondence that typifies what I am talking about. I saw correspondence between the First Presidency and a sociologist who knew much about Cuba. It was a scan of letters between the sociologist and FP. The FP had asked the sociologist about the potential for missionary work in Cuba, and the issue of race came up. The sociologist objected to the racist perspective he felt the FP protrayed in their correspondence.

This is the response the sociologist received after giving his learned objection and research on the matter — the early part of the correspondence is long, so I have cut and pasted the part that bears on our conversation…

…FP continues response to the sociologist who objected to perceived racism in the FP correspondence to him….

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning ‘marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit’]. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency2

Lowry’s [the sociologist] response included the following, along with some research evidence:

The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist.3

The First Presidency replied:

We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God.3

My conclusion is that as a church, we are not really interested in scholarship and research unless it is something that supports what we already believe. And as I said earlier, the fact that we have canon that makes it doctrinal “when they are learned, they think they are wise”, amplifies this among Mormons.

Also, I have started recognizing technques that people use to end conversations rather than to reach reasoned conclusions. One flying around the city I live now is to say “Well I don’t want to argue about it!” — whenever someone objects to someone else. The objection can be kind and reasoned, but the person to whom the objective is being placed ends the conversation by reframing the whole conversation as an argument, which, of course, is not socially acceptable. It allows them to end the conversation without responding to the objection.

I see the “don’t rely on worldly reason” as another case of this reframing. Rather than respond to the research or the objections of the sociologist with counter research or reasoning, they reframe his comments as a “learned man” who, because he is learned, thinks he is wise.

And I repeat that nearly everyone does what you are describing when it comes to ideas and beliefs they hold dear, sacred or special in some way. Politics, economics, religion, race, higher education . . . you name it, people ignore evidence that doesn’t align with their beliefs nearly universally – especially in a time like now when any position has multiple sources that appear to be “learned” to someone who is not learned in that area.

Not sure. At one time I was very black and white in my thinking — list the way a TBM thinks, and that was me — but I changed. Evidence changed many of my central beliefs. Same with many other people on this site. At one time, very black and white, but now, far more open to alternate perspectives, if you read their introductions.

I will say this — one thing that bothers me in reasoned discussion is when people fall-back on what I called generic arguments. They are arguments that can be given at the end of any argument to bring it to a close. They tend to be blanket, and general rather than specific to the issue. I cited one in this thread earlier that is going around my city “Well I don’t want to argue about it” when the discussion is merely one of reason, lacking emotion.

Another I have heard is “this is a problem in all churches, not just ours”. Whether widespread or not, it is still a problem….Or this one — everyone accepts the research that bolsters their native opinion. A blanket statement, with even dubious truth.

And I do maintain that writing off research from the world with the “learned man is not necessarily wise” argument, without addressing the research itself, is a problem amplified in the LDS church given its BoM reference to that principle.

…which kind of proves my point.

I’d be open to changing what I think if someone could cite several instances where the church had embraced scholarly, outside research that was contrary to its existing operational principles or maybe even doctrine, and then altered what they thought on a wide scale. Not an isolated incident, but where research alone from outside sources altered their thinking. I find the upper leaders pretty steadfast in traditional beliefs — however, when church assets are at stake, when society has shifted in its opinions so far away from the church that they lose membership, or missionary work slows, they tend to change. Change is more often due to what i will call “business reasons” than a sincere search for truth.

But I have feeling you and I have reached “saturation” on this discussion, so I’m happy to agree to disagree if you want. I think this is funny in a way, because I wrote the same agree to disagree, soft-landing statement in the other thread we had going today about faith dilution and membership loss. Don’t take this as a relationship issue. I respect what you do Ray, your intelligence, and a lot of what you say.

I get what you are saying SD. The “this is a problem in all churches, just not ours…” excuse just does not work for me at this time.

And I repeat that nearly everyone does what you are describing when it comes to ideas and beliefs they hold dear, sacred or special in some way. Politics, economics, religion, race, higher education . . . you name it, people ignore evidence that doesn’t align with their beliefs nearly universally – especially in a time like now when any position has multiple sources that appear to be “learned” to someone who is not learned in that area.

And for me that is the beauty of peer reviewed, well controlled, scientific studies. It is not a case of my expert witness testimony against your “so called” expert witness testimony and round and round we go forever. If we can agree on the acceptable standards of scientific discovery then we have a process for altering our traditional thinking based largely on the merits of the theory being tested. This is particularly true when additional studies duplicate the results and confirm the findings.

SD seems to be saying that institutionally we are sometimes reluctant to apply such studies, research, or best practices to the church experience. More to the specific point SD seems to be making that there is a culture in the church that allows for the dismissal of research studies simply because they are trumped by church practices/doctrine and that some individuals misuse that culture to generally devalue scientific knowledge.

I have heard recently from my EQP that science goes back and forth on topics such as whether or not global warming exists while we in the church can have absolute confidence in revealed truth.

I will say this — one thing that bothers me in reasoned discussion is when people fall-back on what I called generic arguments. They are arguments that can be given at the end of any argument to bring it to a close. They tend to be blanket, and general rather than specific to the issue.

I understood testimony bearing to be perfect for just this kind of discussion ending effectiveness. No argument can gain traction in the face of knowledge gained through the testimony of the holy spirit.

And for me that is the beauty of peer reviewed, well controlled, scientific studies. It is not a case of my expert witness testimony against your “so called” expert witness testimony and round and round we go forever. If we can agree on the acceptable standards of scientific discovery then we have a process for altering our traditional thinking based largely on the merits of the theory being tested. This is particularly true when additional studies duplicate the results and confirm the findings.

SD seems to be saying that institutionally we are sometimes reluctant to apply such studies, research, or best practices to the church experience. More to the specific point SD seems to be making that there is a culture in the church that allows for the dismissal of research studies simply because they are trumped by church practices/doctrine and that some individuals misuse that culture to generally devalue scientific knowledge.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You said it better. I do believe that bearing down in pure testimony is a good example of what I am talking about.

Anyway – back to my original question. Although I might not say it out loud (for the reasons Roy gave about being non-confrontive, and keeping options open). I might walk away saying to myself that simply because a person is learned doesn’t mean they are unwise…

I believe that the negativity toward intellectuals we sometimes see in the church is partly an outgrowth of the fact that in JS’s day, there were few intellectuals. Only the privileged had access to education, and I think this created a bit of a divide in perhaps feeling of insecurity among the uneducated classes. Perhaps even some animosity. Ben Franklin dealt with this by using Sundays to get an education, rather than going to church.