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

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

I lived on the edge the first half of my life. In the end, it just made me dizzy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I lived on the edge the first half of my life. In the end, it just made me dizzy.

I'm just messing with you. You are a quality guy in my book.

[RockyBalboa]

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.

I can respect this, because it is completely forthright and honest, with no guile.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I was 100% accurate in what your response to his response would be.

You and Arch aren't that different. Differing political views but I will not be one bit surprised if one day neither of you are no longer in the church anymore because of your arrogance.

Arch as much as he loathes politicians is more like one on here than anyone that posts.

You as much as you embrace everyone with your liberal beliefs are proven wrong often in debates on here and will always change what you think someone has said to make it fit your bizarre thought processes and then when you get proven wrong still refuse to admit.

Both of you should start your own cologne called Arrogance.

That may not be nice, but that's what I think.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

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

In other words you have no balls and won't answer the question.

Okay.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You and Arch aren't that different. Differing political views but I will not be one bit surprised if one day neither of you are no longer in the church anymore because of your arrogance.

Arch as much as he loathes politicians is more like one on here than anyone that posts.

You as much as you embrace everyone with your liberal beliefs are proven wrong often in debates on here and will always change what you think someone has said to make it fit your bizarre thought processes and then when you get proven wrong still refuse to admit.

Both of you should start your own cologne called Arrogance.

That may not be nice, but that's what I think.

Given your prognosticative powers, Cali and I now can rest assured that we will die with progeny in the Church for generations and generations. Any more predictions.

[ute4ever]

Is this really my hand, or am I being deceived by an evil genius?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Given your prognosticative powers, Cali and I now can rest assured that we will die with progeny in the Church for generations and generations. Any more predictions.

You hear that Arch! We are going in to business together to create a cologne called "Arrogance." Keep in mind that it was my idea (I actually prompted the outburst from Rocky which led to the idea, so I will take full credit for it) and that I am superior to you.

I think we should actually call it "Arrog-essance." I know this much, we will only make it available to the elite of the elite of the elite. The elite of the elite is simply too pedestrian for my tastes. Add another elite and we can talk. Our business will compose all documents in Latin and we will be required to extend our pinky fingers whenever we take a drink (or we will require our servants to extend their pinky fingers whenever they hold our straws for us to take a drink).

We should probably move to France, and then we should spend all of our time destroying the lives of French people to ensure that they know we are superior to them and don't actually need to live in France to be great.

Finally, we need to form a new church (since we clearly have no future in the Mormon church). I would suggest we call it The Arch of Cali. We don't really have a belief system yet, but I am pretty sure it will at least involve taking up archery in California. Maybe we can shoot at people who are inferior to us (i.e., everyone).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You and Arch aren't that different. Differing political views but I will not be one bit surprised if one day neither of you are no longer in the church anymore because of your arrogance.

Arch as much as he loathes politicians is more like one on here than anyone that posts.

You as much as you embrace everyone with your liberal beliefs are proven wrong often in debates on here and will always change what you think someone has said to make it fit your bizarre thought processes and then when you get proven wrong still refuse to admit.

Both of you should start your own cologne called Arrogance.

That may not be nice, but that's what I think.

Off the wagon again, eh? How long did you last this time? Two days?

[mpfunk]

This whole thread hits upon one of the reasons why I believe the LDS church is in fact true. When I was inactive one of the reasons is that I did not believe that there was anything that could work for all individuals. I assumed that people are different enough that people would need different approaches to things. I just assumed the LDS church included one approach to salvation.

I have since learned that the church caters to all different types of people. It works for those who want to intellectualize the Gospel. There is no harm in seeking out truth, as long as you maintain a connection to the spirit. Those that need this type of process, are welcome in the Gospel and can obtain further knowledge.

Contrast this with the real hard line types like Rocky. His approach to the Gospel is much simpler, he reads the standard works and the words of the Prophets. He takes a very literal interpretation of every thing. This is in no ways inferior to the above approach, it is just a different approach. The Gospel also accomodates and allows for this approach.

Just look at the Quorum of the 12 Apostles you can find people who are examples of both approaches. These are just the extremes, and there are those in the middle.

So to answer Rocky's questions, it all depends on the person. Some people will fall if they go on this search, because his personality may not support this search and may be swayed to easily. Others may need the intellectual approach to maintain themselves in the Gospel. The beauty of the Gospel is that it recognizes that personalities are different, and accomdates this.