Intellectual Faith?

[Anonymous]

Leonard Aarington in his essay Why I Am a Believer (Sunstone Jan ’85 36-38) made some interesting comments: “My path of commitment to and belief in the [Church] developed around four basic religious questions I encountered as I grew up. 1) Is there a living God? 2) Was Jesus a teacher worthy to be worshipped? 3) Was Joseph Smith a prophet deserving of allegiance? 4) Is our LDS culture meritorious – worth defending and working for?”

I am fascinated by the fact that he wasn’t asking “Was Jesus the divine Savior?” or “Does the LDS Church hold the one-and-only literal authority of God?” Leonard was the official Church historian from 1972 to 1982, looked upon almost as a general authority. As I read things like this (from Bushman, Eugene England, Lowell Bennion, etc.) I am encouraged in my own ability to believe – and I’m starting to think that there is an “intellectual faith” that is as valid as the emotional/spiritual variety that our church culture has almost exclusively promoted in the recent past.

Arrington continued “I believed the intellect to be enormously important – more important than the heart, more important than tradition. If my mind could not confirm the truth of my religion, I felt I would be unsettled and apprehensive. …I acted as a believer, willing to assume there was a loving and powerful Creator. But I was not satisfied until I had studied the matter through and came to a conviction that my intellect could defend.”

He goes on to state that one of his early influences came in the form of Lowell Bennion’s manual: What about Religion? In it Bennion “taught a crucial truth, namely that the restored gospel represents truth and enlightenment, not superstition and ignorance. Scholarship and education are part of the gospel; Mormonism undertakes to foster the discovery and spread of truth; God has commanded that we study and learn and become acquainted with all good books; the glory of God is intelligence; and it is impossible for a man or woman to be saved in ignorance (D&C 90:15; 93:36; 88:118; 131:6). The manual also quoted with approval Brigham Young’s statements in the Journal of Discourses that we accept truth no matter where it comes from, that Mormonism comprises all truth, and that there is an indissoluble relationship between religion and learning.” Arrington noted “These became articles of my religious faith and continue to remain so.”

Further in his essay he addresses the subject of the miraculous foundational events of our Church and asks the question “can one accept all of the miraculous events that surrounded the restoration of the gospel?” He then explains one helpful concept – “that truth may be expressed not only through science and abstract reason but also through stories, testimonies, and narratives of personal experience; not only through erudite scholarship but also through poetry, drama, and historical novels. …[Religious myth] is an account that may or may not have a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation. The truth of a myth is beyond empirical or historical accessibility. Examples are the Christian story of the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis. These are ways of explaining events or truths having religious significance that may be either symbolical or historical.” He concludes “I was never preoccupied with the question of the historicity of Joseph Smith’s first vision (though I find the evidence overwhelming that it did occur) or of the many reported epiphanies in Mormon, Christian, or Hebrew history. I am prepared to accept them as historical or as metaphorical, as symbolical, or as precisely what happened. That they convey religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.”

Reading thoughts such as this, that literalness is not the most important factor, from respected faithful church members, helps me to feel validated in my own beliefs. My way of thinking/believing may not be accepted by some members, but that doesn’t really matter does it? I firmly believe that my faith and understanding is wholeheartedly accepted by God, and that is what’s important. I think he gives us clues to uncover, sometimes not unlike Reb Saunders in The Chosen who deliberately inserted mistakes into his dialogue for his son to find. The overall lesson is what I find valuable, it’s the process that helps us to grow – that helps us Become.

[Anonymous]

hmmm, a lot to digest in that post.

I’m going through my faith crisis/struggle pretty intensely right now, and appreciate a lot of what people like Bennion and Aarington have to say and contribute.

I guess the problem I’ve been having when I’m at church right now is that I am constantly footnoting and commenting in my head about the lessons and discussion. Sometimes it feels like I’m in a secret place and have to keep quiet lest I give away to everyone else the perspective they probably don’t want to hear. While I like hearing from the unorthodox pioneers of mormon thought, it’s not exactly the sunday school version.

How do we reconcile those two worlds? how do we merge internet and chapel (or more appropriately, temple) mormons together?

[Anonymous]

cjonesy108 wrote:

How do we reconcile those two worlds? how do we merge internet and chapel (or more appropriately, temple) mormons together?

This is the riddle expressed at times as “The Squaring of the Circle.” People have worked this problem for thousands of years. How do you reconcile and combine:

Mind vs Heart

Heaven vs Earth

Rational vs Irrational (irrational is a natural state sometimes in the universe, not always bad)

Literal vs Symbol

Fact vs Meaning

There’s a point in our development where we fight with and struggle to solve this. Some of the greatest minds in history made this the object of their work.

So basically, this is my way of saying I don’t know 😆 I’m working on it too.

[Anonymous]

How do we merge? That is an excellent question. I believe that is part of the mission of StayLDS.

There are no easy answers. I believe the “merge” will come over time through increased awareness and understanding. The road to that point must be paved with love, respect, patience, and a desire to learn/understand. Knowing that we can change no one but ourselves – it sometimes can be a tremendous investment to embark on the path.

I believe the understanding begins with familiarity with these “alternate” views of Arrington, England, Bennion, etc. along with personal pondering and interpretation to things that we hear everyday in church. Over time we come to understand how our personal beliefs fit into the fabric of the church. Some talks from the recent conference come to mind “you may not know everything, but you know enough” and President Eyring’s talk (there were a few) I found to be warm and inclusive. I appreciate those messages and they help to sooth the strictly literal and dogmatic messages we also seem to hear at times.

I highly recommend “Stages of Faith” by James W. Fowler if you haven’t read it already. To me it is an invaluable framework that sheds light on why the church culture is what it is, why a crisis of faith is part of a natural faith evolution, and it gives hope of reuniting in a meaningful way with the faith tradition (stage 5). I’ve heard it whispered that StayLDS could be seen as “helping people reach stage 5”. Others rightfully point out that the book is not a roadmap, and many things contribute to the natural stage progression – but I think it is a must read for anyone who has or is experiencing the “crisis” (stage 4).

[Anonymous]

I’ve made this point more than once in other discussions, but I realized fairly early in my life that I could construct a reasonable argument for just about anything I wanted to do or believe. I mean that; if I apply my mind to construct a justification for almost anything, I can do it. Everyone does it to one degree or another; the key is controlling it and directing it to what I really desire. That discovery is the truth that made me free, if you will.

I have found in my life what brings me joy. I know what I want to believe, so I consciously work out a reason to believe it. As ironic as it is to phrase it this way, I know I will never know in this life every detail well enough to have absolute certainty concerning most things. I certainly understand how impossible it is to be positive of historical things, particularly motivations and others’ understanding. I have come to realize that I see through my own glass, darkly – and, more importantly, I have come to embrace that as a wonderful thing. Knowing I can never be absolutely certain has freed me from the black and white world that limits the possibilities of what I can believe. I’m not locked into any particular puzzle, since I know I don’t know enough to put the outlining pieces properly in place. That means I can explore ways to understand my faith that wouldn’t be available if I was locked into absolute knowledge.

The ironic result of this freedom is that I have been blown away by the depth and the breadth of the Restored Gospel. it is simply astounding how expansive and universal and powerful that Gospel is – especially when compared to the rest of Christianity. The only other religion that approaches it, imo, is Buddhism – and the overarching similarities are striking. That also is a testimony to me of the prophetic inspiration of Joseph Smith – the near mirroring of Mormonism with what I consider to be the great religion of the East.

I might post more on that at some point, but the summary version is that I believe in “intellectual faith” (where “faith” is the subject and “intellectual” is the qualifier), NOT “faithful intellectualism” (where the intellect comes first). I want my intellect to deepen my faith, however the outline of that faith ebbs and flows. I want my intellect to help my spirit soar – to free me to experience the cosmic and the divine – to provide valid justifications to not wallow in the world. I want to dream, but I want to dream intelligent, inspiring dreams.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for repeating your point Ray, I think it is helpful. Todd Compton has also said his “absolutist” faith has been replaced by a “non-absolutist” faith. This is one of the common threads I find – as you say we cannot be locked into the idea of “absolute” knowledge and also be free to discover more of God’s truth.

I think a tangent to this idea can also be taken too far. Imagine faithful followers of Jim Jones that for whatever reason were in the states and missed the fateful event. They could try to argue that you don’t ‘really’ know what happened there, you don’t know everything that Jones said – and what his true intentions were. I realize this is a horrible parallel to make, but I think it’s good food for thought and a small reality check to keep ourselves from discrediting some things that are most likely reliable facts.

I also like your distinction between intellectual faith and faithful intellectualism. I agree – I think the former describes two things – faith and intellectualism, while the later isn’t really of faith at all.

I also like what B.H. Roberts said: “Simple faith …faith without understanding of the thing believed, is not equal to intelligent faith, the faith that is …supplemented by earnest endeavor to find through prayerful thought and research a rational ground for faith – for acceptance of truth; and hence the duty of striving for a rational faith in which the intellect as well as the heart …has a place and is factor.” (The Seventy’s Course in Theology, last volume)

[Author]

Posts