Intellectuals of the church defined

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If I were to "label" the group here, I would identify SIEQ, Pelagius, Solon, maybe even Barbara, Seattle, Dan, Mike, Jeff Lebowski and AA as pure intellectuals. I would identify UtahDan, Indy, creekster, Jay, some of Ute friends, and maybe myself as employing some techniques of intellectualism.

I think you're confusing the word intellectual with academic or even intelligent or "well read". That's not the way Mauss uses it. If you open up the term Mormon intellectual to all academics or all intelligent people, the Mauss victimization/discrimination theory really blows up.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think this is idiosyncratic to Indy, but I am a bit puzzled with how rational is being used here. Since, I am an economist I define rational as the following: If there are three choices A, B, and C, I am rational if I prefer one of the options or I am indifferent between them. Also, my preferences for the choices must be transitive. IF I prefer A to B and B to C, then I prefer A to C.

I don't think that is how it is being used here. Are people equating rational and naturalistic?

Let me try to illustrate this via basic example

Rational vs spiritual

Rational - No mitochondrial DNA that would indicate Middle Eastern ancestry in Native American peoples.

Spiritual - Read, ponder and pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and receive a spiritual witness that the contents are true; which is an implicit acceptance of its claim about the migration of the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites and possibly others from the Middle East.

The intellectual would be more likely than the "non-intellectual" to be swayed by current interpretation of mitochondrial DNA evidence to call into question the veracity of the Book of Mormon, past spiritual experiences notwithstanding.

Don't get hung up on the specifics of this example, I'm just trying to better delineate the difference I see between the two fairly amorphous groupings.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Cali is not an intellectual. No intellectual disparages Moby Dick.

Worst... book... ever. Except for anything written by Jane Austen.

If you have to like Moby Dick to be an intellectual, does that suggest that all intellectuals are followers rather than independent thinkers? Ironic, given that most Mormons would identify intellectuals as independent thinkers rather than followers.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let me try to illustrate this via basic example

Rational vs spiritual

Rational - No mitochondrial DNA that would indicate Middle Eastern ancestry in Native American peoples.

Spiritual - Read, ponder and pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and receive a spiritual witness that the contents are true; which is an implicit acceptance of its claim about the migration of the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites and possibly others from the Middle East.

The intellect would be more likely than the "non-intellect" to be swayed by current interpretation of mitochondrial DNA evidence to call into question the veracity of the Book of Mormon, past spiritual experiences notwithstanding.

Don't get hung up on the specifics of this example, I'm just trying to better delineate the difference I see between the two fairly amorphous groupings.

I think there is a much larger middle ground. I would look at those two things and ask myself whether when I look at them together is there something more I can learn about either. For example, can what we learn in the scientific world teach us anything about how we have been interpreting the book of Mormon, as opposed to what it itself claims.

Geographers, for example, have taught us what we know about the topography and dimension of north and central America. Of course most people have assumed that the events of the BOM took place over a large area. Many now, in light of comparing the BOM to what we know from geography, have postulated that perhaps we have misinterpreted the BOM and it is actually a much smaller area. This is just an example too.

My point is that I don't think most people just reject what they learned at church. I think most people either figure out how to harmonize it or take it on faith. Obviously there are things that are resistent to such synthesis based on what we currently know. Is one being an intellectual in teh perjorative sense when they toss around and debate ideas as to how that snythesis might occur? That is what some seem to be saying.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think there is a much larger middle ground. I would look at those two things and ask myself whether when I look at them together is there something more I can learn about either. For example, can what we learn in the scientific world teach us anything about how we have been interpreting the book of Mormon, as opposed to what it itself claims.

Geographers, for example, have taught us what we know about the topography and dimension of north and central America. Of course most people have assumed that the events of the BOM took place over a large area. Many now, in light of comparing the BOM to what we know from geography, have postulated that perhaps we have misinterpreted the BOM and it is actually a much smaller area. This is just an example too.

My point is that I don't think most people just reject what they learned at church. I think most people either figure out how to harmonize it or take it on faith. Obviously there are things that are resistent to such synthesis based on what we currently know.

Those are good points, but that "conflict" isn't a doctrinal one, per se.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let me try to illustrate this via basic example

Rational vs spiritual

Indy, is it fair to say that you are making the same kind of distinction that Nibley did in, "Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic"? Although I think your distinction is useful, I am uncomfortable making the dichotomy between rational and spiritual. I don't think it is fair to people on either side of the divide you propose. I think people can be completely rational (at least in terms of its classic definition in economics) and still fit entirely in your Spiritual category.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I think you're confusing the word intellectual with academic or even intelligent or "well read". That's not the way Mauss uses it. If you open up the term Mormon intellectual to all academics or all intelligent people, the Mauss victimization/discrimination theory really blows up.

No, I don't believe I'm confusing the two.

The truest intellectuals I've met, have been academics and tend to pursue this quiet, artsy, particular lifestyle, filled with books, and very neat surroundings. Their balance includes something spiritual together with academic interests. I picture them to be Greenpeacers often, enjoying nature and generally contributing to society in a positive fashion. They will not try to be flashy or ornate.

So, although there may be a distinction between intellectualism and intellectuals, I see it as a lifestyle which champions reason, intellect and a controlled ambience in one's life. I see classical music played, a Chardonnay before bedtime, and everything in its place.

That's not me. My life is hectic, rushed, demanding differing dialects, different approaches and nothing within total control, or the illusion of control. It's a fast-paced maddening chaos.

That's why I picture those persons living sedate lives as intellectuals.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Indy, is it fair to say that you are making the same kind of distinction that Nibley did in, "Three Shrines: Mantic, Sophic, and Sophistic"? Although I think your distinction is useful, I am uncomfortable making the dichotomy between rational and spiritual. I don't think it is fair to people on either side of the divide you propose. I think people can be completely rational (at least in terms of its classic definition in economics) and still fit entirely in your Spiritual category.

I'm not familiar with Nibley's comments. It's more of a "when push comes to shove" where will we put our trust: in the arm of flesh or in the Lord?

I realize this is a tough generalization to make and not everyone perfectly fits into Column A or Column B, but you can see a microcosm of that struggle in this forum almost daily.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm not familiar with Nibley's comments. It's more of a "when push comes to shove" where will we put our trust: in the arm of flesh or in the Lord?

I realize this is a tough generalization to make and not everyone perfectly fits into Column A or Column B, but you can see a microcosm of that struggle in this forum almost daily.

I don't oppose your categories; I just think the first is mislabeled. It is probably positively correlated on average, but I don't think the title "rational" really describes the essence of the category. I think Nibley's titles capture the essence of your categories better. Here is a quote:

Socrates ended his life with a speech that emphasized two points: (1) that he had not found in this life what he was looking for, and knew of no one else who had; and (2) that failure had not in the least abated his conviction that what he was looking for was to be found. (313)

The theme of these talks is that the Greeks (like the Christian church that later followed in their footsteps), passed from a primordial "Mantic" order of things to the "Sophic," and lost their original mood of expectation, putting something else in its place. It passed from the Mantic to the Sophic, and thence in its attempts to combine the two, arrived at the Sophistic. The Greeks passed through the same three stages before the Christians did, and it was their particular brand of Sophic and Sophistic that the Church accepted. It is time to define these terms, Sophic and Mantic. (315)

The Greek word Mantic simply means prophetic or inspired, oracular, coming from the other world and not from the resources of the human mind. Instead of Dio's [Chrysostom] Sophistic to describe the operations of the unaided human mind, we use the much rarer Sophic here, because, as is well known, in time Sophistic came to be identical with Rhetorical, that is, a pseudothought form which merely imitated the other two in an attempt to impress the public. The Mantic is the equivalent of what Professor Goodenough designates as "vertical" Judaism, i.e., the belief in the real and present operation of divine gifts by which one receives constant guidance from the other world, a faith expressed in varying degrees among such ancient sectaries as the Hasidim, Karaites, Kabbalists, and the people of Qumran. The Mantic accepts the other world, or better, other worlds, as part of our whole experience without which any true understanding of this life is out of the question. "It is the Mantic," sayis Synesius, "which supplies the element of hope in our lives by assuring us of the reality of things beyond." Mantic, hope, and reality are the key words. What is expected is not as important as the act of expectation, and so those who share the Mantic conviction are a community of believers, regardless of what it is they expect. (315-6)

The Sophic, on the other hand, is the tradition which boasted its cool, critical, objective, naturalistic, and scientific attitude; its Jewish equivalent is what Goodenough calls the "horizontal" Judaism - scholarly, bookish, halachic, intellectual, rabbinical. All religions, as Goodenough observes, seem to make some such distinction. It is when one seeks to combine or reconcile the Sophic and the Mantic that trouble begins.

. . . Whoever accepts the Sophic attitude must abandon the Mantic, and vice versa. It is the famous doctrine of Two Ways found among the Orientals, Greeks and early Christians . . . On the other hand, the Sophic society unitedly rejects the Mantic proposition, and it too forms a single community . . . here was "a man who prized brain and insight, who preferred the voice of reasoned conviction to the braying of Balaam's ass." Better false teaching from a true intellectual than the truth from a prophet. So fiercely loyal and uncompromising are the Sophic and Mantic to their own.

It behooves us to consider the Mantic at this time because in our day its influence (under the name of eschatology) is being strangely and wonderfully expanded as the steady continuance of new manuscript discoveries calls from radical reevaluation of ancient religion in general. . . . "Patternism" now proposes to trace such ties [between different myths, rituals, and cultures] back to prehistoric times. No ancient religious rites can be considered as spontaneous and independent in origin, as not long ago virtually all were thought to be. (316)

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let me try to illustrate this via basic example

Rational vs spiritual

Rational - No mitochondrial DNA that would indicate Middle Eastern ancestry in Native American peoples.

Spiritual - Read, ponder and pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and receive a spiritual witness that the contents are true; which is an implicit acceptance of its claim about the migration of the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites and possibly others from the Middle East.

The intellectual would be more likely than the "non-intellectual" to be swayed by current interpretation of mitochondrial DNA evidence to call into question the veracity of the Book of Mormon, past spiritual experiences notwithstanding.

Don't get hung up on the specifics of this example, I'm just trying to better delineate the difference I see between the two fairly amorphous groupings.

Another way to look at it is the church tells you the sky is red. The rational will go with what he can see and prove (the arm of flesh) and say No the sky is blue. While the spiritual will get in line and say the sky is indeed red because the church is true and the prophet said so.