Does "Intellectualism" lead to a loss of faith in the Gospel?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I'm not sure of your definition of intellectualism, but I do know that an honest pursuit of the truth is never a bad thing. For many years I put off a serious study of the Church, because I was afraid of what I was going to discover. When I did make a serious study, my fears were confirmed. I'm not sure I'm a better person or a happier person for having lost my faith, but I do have a lot less anxiety from pretending to have faith in something in which I did not believe.

And yet, lots of folks go through the same journey of discovery and come to different conclusions.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I was 100% accurate on what I knew your response would be.

Then I was probably 100% accurate on your purpose for posting the question.

[DrumNFeather]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Or to an enhancement of faith of the Gospel?

Discuss.

I'm sure that most feel on here the answer is both, but I'm curious what you guys think.

I think I know what most of the answers will be, but am curious to see nonetheless.

I'll give it a shot.

To me this seems kind of like a book smarts vs. street smarts type argument...except of course we're dealing with Religion in which case I suppose one would have to ask what the best way to improve his or her faith and the problem, of course, is that there is no one size fits all way that people improve their faith.

Some will say that faith is improved in Temple attendance. Others might suggest that supplimental reading of books written by the bretheren are faith builders. There are those that are simply awaiting the next miracle in their lives to come along and yet again strengthen their faith. And then there are those, and I think this may be what you are getting at, who say that they feel they need to know the whole story and as such thoroughly research topics from church authors and non church authors.

Perhaps it all comes down to intent, which we can never truly measure and I suppose the answer lies somewhere in between each of the things I've mentioned where you've got to just do what you are comfortable with...and as long as you understand what you believe and what you have faith in before examining other materials, you're probably fine.

A few examples:

During the Da Vinci Code hoopla, a number of people on the other board mentioned that you cannot be LDS and "agree" with the premise or findings of that book.

I read that book. I thought it was entertaining and suggested a few interesting ideas...but when I read the part about Christ being married or having Children or even the author suggesting he was not the person history has made him out to be...I didn't ever think to myself..."well, there goes my testimony." You have to take things like that for what they are...and I'm certainly not comparing that book to the intellectually stimulating books that have been reviewed here...just an example.

Another example comes from a few Catholic friends I have. A number of them have told me that their entire faith is wrapped up in the infalibility of the Pope and infalibility of the Church to lead Catholics in the right direction. As you can imagine, the recent scandels involving church clergy and youg men have rocked their foundations...on top of that, their infalible Pope being a part of the Church's attempt to sweep things under the rug has made them have to take a long hard look at what they believe and what they are holding on to.

Likewise, church members that tie their faith to Joseph Smith the person or the Church Organization as a whole will ultimately find a way to find fault and lose faith in it. If religious history has taught us anything, it is that God chooses imperfect people to do his work.

The Gospel is what it is, and if people choose to suppliment that with outside sources, that is certainly a choice they are allowed to make. Some will tell you it strengthens faith and others will undoubtably claim there is no way that it can't weaken it...I don't know what the right answer is and I think Archea is right to a certain degree that it is an unanswerable question. But it still all comes down to what you choose to do to suppliment your faith...if that ultimately leads to you leaving the church because you've lost your faith in the process, perhaps you would've left at some point anyway. Makes for an interesting discussion though.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And yet, lots of folks go through the same journey of discovery and come to different conclusions.

That's true. Some become Mormons. But others take the same journey of discovery and become Scientologists, while others become Buddishts, and still others become Branch Davidians. People can will themselves to believe just about anything, especially if it gives them hope and comfort.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

That's true. Some become Mormons. But others take the same journey of discovery and become Scientologists, while others become Buddishts, and still others become Branch Davidians. People can will themselves to believe just about anything, especially if it gives them hope and comfort.

Conversely, through doubt, people can cease to believe anything, even one's own existence.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Conversely, through doubt, people can cease to believe anything, even one's own existence.

What you call doubt, I call skepticism. I don't discount the possibility that anyone's faith might be grounded in truth. I'm just not willing to make the same leaps of faith given the available evidence.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

What you call doubt, I call skepticism. I don't discount the possibility that anyone's faith might be grounded in truth. I'm just not willing to make the same leaps of faith given the available evidence.

No, what I mean, is truly Cartesian.

It is possible for me to sit and imagine that I am but a manipulation of some wickedly cruel genius's imagination, that I am but a figment.

Skepticism, means trusting but verifying.

Doubt can sink lower than that.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, what I mean, is truly Cartesian.

It is possible for me to sit and imagine that I am but a manipulation of some wickedly cruel genius's imagination, that I am but a figment.

Skepticism, means trusting but verifying.

Doubt can sink lower than that.

Well, if I am a figment of some cruel genius's imagination, I wish he'd stop being such a prick and conjure up a more acceptable figment. And if he has any questions as to what I mean by "acceptable", he needs to consult with GoatNapper.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

What you call doubt, I call skepticism. I don't discount the possibility that anyone's faith might be grounded in truth. I'm just not willing to make the same leaps of faith given the available evidence.

If you are waiting for additional evidence, then, by definition, you will never make a leap of faith. Live on the edge for once!

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Well, if I am a figment of some cruel genius's imagination, I wish he'd stop being such a prick and conjure up a more acceptable figment. And if he has any questions as to what I mean by "acceptable", he needs to consult with GoatNapper.

The genius is CRUEL, not friendly.