De Re Spirituale

[All-American]

All this talk of the interplay (feud?) between things “spiritual” and things “intellectual” present what is for me one of life’s most perpetually befuddling paradoxes.

All around me, and especially at the BYU, I hear talk of how to “balance” the intellectual and the spiritual. It comes up from time to time in Sunday school, in those late night discussions with roommates—even on teachers’ evaluations they ask the students if the teacher properly applied spiritual matters insofar as the course material allowed.

Frankly, I’ve never understood why the division is made between “spiritual” and “intellectual” matters. I don’t believe the separation is a natural one—D&C 29:34 seems to imply as much—and that any distinction is essentially artificial, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve felt the spirit just as strongly in Greek 311, studying the Gospel of John in its original Greek, as I have in any Sunday school class—and why not, if the objective of either is to gain further light and truth? And if this is the case, why should the spirit not be present in Econ 111, when learning about the interaction of the laws of supply and demand? If Brigham Young instructed Karl G. Maeser that he should not teach so much as the arithmetic tables without the spirit of the Lord present, does that not suggest that any “intellectual” pursuit inherently ought likewise to be a “spiritual” one?

Learning, growing, and gaining further knowledge has always been an important part of my own spiritual pursuits. I don’t understand why one side of the fence feels any need to shun the other, when the objectives of both are one and the same. The intent of the “spiritual” is the worship of a being whose glory is intelligence, light, and truth.

In fact, the two are codependent. In his warning against intellectualism in 2 Nephi 9:28-29, Jacob notes the tragic flaw of too many intellectuals: “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.” But it is not learning itself he condemns—“to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God”—it is the neglect of things spiritual in favor of the intellectual. Likewise, Joseph Smith rebuked the saints for their spiritual “zeal” which was “not according to knowledge,” noting that under such a spirit, many of the saints “were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves.” It seems clear that to divorce intellectualism from spirituality would have a similar effect as the deprivation of works from faith.

The simultaneous warnings are not contradictory. For both for the intellectuals who shun the spiritual and the spiritually-minded who shun intellectualism, the warning is not against intellectualism and spiritualism, but against pride, the great inhibitor of light and truth. To sneer at the spiritual or to condemn the intellectual ultimately prevents the acquisition of what knowledge might have otherwise been available to the detriment of the one who so acts.

We ought not to bemoan the interaction of the spiritual and the intellectual, nor fear to expose truth to truth or panic if two truths seem incompatible at first glance. We ought then to recognize that our knowledge, whether it is gained through intellectual or spiritual pursuits, is both imperfect and incomplete, and make adjustments as necessary. I see no other appropriate course of action for any who believe that ultimately, all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by All-American

All this talk of the interplay (feud?) between things “spiritual” and things “intellectual” present what is for me one of life’s most perpetually befuddling paradoxes.

All around me, and especially at the BYU, I hear talk of how to “balance” the intellectual and the spiritual. It comes up from time to time in Sunday school, in those late night discussions with roommates—even on teachers’ evaluations they ask the students if the teacher properly applied spiritual matters insofar as the course material allowed.

Frankly, I’ve never understood why the division is made between “spiritual” and “intellectual” matters. I don’t believe the separation is a natural one—D&C 29:34 seems to imply as much—and that any distinction is essentially artificial, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve felt the spirit just as strongly in Greek 311, studying the Gospel of John in its original Greek, as I have in any Sunday school class—and why not, if the objective of either is to gain further light and truth? And if this is the case, why should the spirit not be present in Econ 111, when learning about the interaction of the laws of supply and demand? If Brigham Young instructed Karl G. Maeser that he should not teach so much as the arithmetic tables without the spirit of the Lord present, does that not suggest that any “intellectual” pursuit inherently ought likewise to be a “spiritual” one?

Learning, growing, and gaining further knowledge has always been an important part of my own spiritual pursuits. I don’t understand why one side of the fence feels any need to shun the other, when the objectives of both are one and the same. The intent of the “spiritual” is the worship of a being whose glory is intelligence, light, and truth.

In fact, the two are codependent. In his warning against intellectualism in 2 Nephi 9:28-29, Jacob notes the tragic flaw of too many intellectuals: “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.” But it is not learning itself he condemns—“to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God”—it is the neglect of things spiritual in favor of the intellectual. Likewise, Joseph Smith rebuked the saints for their spiritual “zeal” which was “not according to knowledge,” noting that under such a spirit, many of the saints “were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves.” It seems clear that to divorce intellectualism from spirituality would have a similar effect as the deprivation of works from faith.

The simultaneous warnings are not contradictory. For both for the intellectuals who shun the spiritual and the spiritually-minded who shun intellectualism, the warning is not against intellectualism and spiritualism, but against pride, the great inhibitor of light and truth. To sneer at the spiritual or to condemn the intellectual ultimately prevents the acquisition of what knowledge might have otherwise been available to the detriment of the one who so acts.

We ought not to bemoan the interaction of the spiritual and the intellectual, nor fear to expose truth to truth or panic if two truths seem incompatible at first glance. We ought then to recognize that our knowledge, whether it is gained through intellectual or spiritual pursuits, is both imperfect and incomplete, and make adjustments as necessary. I see no other appropriate course of action for any who believe that ultimately, all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole.

Keep posting AA. You bring a lot of great stuff to this board.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by All-American

All this talk of the interplay (feud?) between things “spiritual” and things “intellectual” present what is for me one of life’s most perpetually befuddling paradoxes.

All around me, and especially at the BYU, I hear talk of how to “balance” the intellectual and the spiritual. It comes up from time to time in Sunday school, in those late night discussions with roommates—even on teachers’ evaluations they ask the students if the teacher properly applied spiritual matters insofar as the course material allowed.

Frankly, I’ve never understood why the division is made between “spiritual” and “intellectual” matters. I don’t believe the separation is a natural one—D&C 29:34 seems to imply as much—and that any distinction is essentially artificial, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve felt the spirit just as strongly in Greek 311, studying the Gospel of John in its original Greek, as I have in any Sunday school class—and why not, if the objective of either is to gain further light and truth? And if this is the case, why should the spirit not be present in Econ 111, when learning about the interaction of the laws of supply and demand? If Brigham Young instructed Karl G. Maeser that he should not teach so much as the arithmetic tables without the spirit of the Lord present, does that not suggest that any “intellectual” pursuit inherently ought likewise to be a “spiritual” one?

Learning, growing, and gaining further knowledge has always been an important part of my own spiritual pursuits. I don’t understand why one side of the fence feels any need to shun the other, when the objectives of both are one and the same. The intent of the “spiritual” is the worship of a being whose glory is intelligence, light, and truth.

In fact, the two are codependent. In his warning against intellectualism in 2 Nephi 9:28-29, Jacob notes the tragic flaw of too many intellectuals: “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.” But it is not learning itself he condemns—“to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God”—it is the neglect of things spiritual in favor of the intellectual. Likewise, Joseph Smith rebuked the saints for their spiritual “zeal” which was “not according to knowledge,” noting that under such a spirit, many of the saints “were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves.” It seems clear that to divorce intellectualism from spirituality would have a similar effect as the deprivation of works from faith.

The simultaneous warnings are not contradictory. For both for the intellectuals who shun the spiritual and the spiritually-minded who shun intellectualism, the warning is not against intellectualism and spiritualism, but against pride, the great inhibitor of light and truth. To sneer at the spiritual or to condemn the intellectual ultimately prevents the acquisition of what knowledge might have otherwise been available to the detriment of the one who so acts.

We ought not to bemoan the interaction of the spiritual and the intellectual, nor fear to expose truth to truth or panic if two truths seem incompatible at first glance. We ought then to recognize that our knowledge, whether it is gained through intellectual or spiritual pursuits, is both imperfect and incomplete, and make adjustments as necessary. I see no other appropriate course of action for any who believe that ultimately, all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole.

AA I have had these same thoughts. I have often thought about what I term a "unifying theory" of truth. That is, there is only one truth and where it does not appear so it is a result of our limited capacity for understanding. I find in practice, however, that intellectual evidences and spiritual evidences not only sometimes do not accord, they contradict. This is what forces me into the catch all of ascribing the conflict to limited capacity for understanding. This allows me not to reject either. I do sometimes wonder, however, if my unifying theory is the equivalent of Einsteins cosmological constant: one big lazy dodge.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I do sometimes wonder, however, if my unifying theory is the equivalent of Einsteins cosmological constant: one big lazy dodge.

More like the unification theory. It iwll happen, we just can't quite get there yet.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

AA I have had these same thoughts. I have often thought about what I term a "unifying theory" of truth. That is, there is only one truth and where it does not appear so it is a result of our limited understanding. I find in practice, however, that intellectual evidences and spiritual evidences not only sometimes do not accord, they contradict. This is what forces me into the catch all of ascribing it to limited understanding. This allows me not to reject either. I do sometimes wonder, however, if my unifying theory is the equivalent of Einsteins cosmological constant: one big lazy dodge.

I think we can both agree that when two sets of evidence suggest two different conclusions that are contradictory or mutually exclusive, one, the other, or both must be wrong. I can't think of any other alternative.

I think the "dodge" to which you refer takes place when somebody sees the inherent contradiction and immediately backs away from it, either by immediately declaring one conclusion the victor or by waiting for somebody else to reconcile the differences. The better alternative would be to analyze the two conclusions, poke and prod, search and research, and test for leaks until you can figure out where you went wrong.

If it turns out that you can't solve the riddle, I see nothing wrong with admitting fallibility and laying out the problems to be unraveled by one more capable.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by All-American

We ought not to bemoan the interaction of the spiritual and the intellectual, nor fear to expose truth to truth or panic if two truths seem incompatible at first glance. We ought then to recognize that our knowledge, whether it is gained through intellectual or spiritual pursuits, is both imperfect and incomplete, and make adjustments as necessary. I see no other appropriate course of action for any who believe that ultimately, all truth will be circumscribed into one great whole.

D&C 93:36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

I believe this to be correct, and I agree with you AA.

As a missionary, I came to believe that there is a lot of 'truth' out there. Through scripture study, and through prayer for me I came to know God as a loving, merciful and just God. That is to say, a God who knows each of us better than we know ourselves and loves us more than we can imagine. I believe that he has laid out a plan, with steps that need to be taken to return to him. How he may get us to understand these points may be done in different forms.

I love the scripture above, because of the way that I feel light can illustrate a point. For example, the room below has some light to it. It's dark, but it is lit.


Obviously, the more light you add to the room, the more and better/easier you can see.

(sorry for the cheesy example, but I feel it makes a decent enough point)

The more light/knowledge we seek to obtain, the clearer the path becomes. The more we are able to understand truth. I like thinking of things as a scale, instead of as black and white. I also believe that no matter how much we learn here, we are in a pretty dark grey as much as the light is concerned. Taking some of the passages that AA cited above, I feel that where learning becomes a problem is when we feel we are reaching a point where we know enough that we stop learning or compare ourselves to others because we know more than they do and become prideful. I think there are things we can learn from every person. People who disagree probably haven't ever had kids.

I also believe that because our Father knows us so well, he may teach us in ways that we can understand. He might teach AA a different way than he teaches the same principle to me. AA can probably read and learn from others experiences instead of experiencing it like I have to to be able to grasp something. And while the methodology and/or terminology may be a bit different from person to person, the underlying lessons are similar enough that those who err, if they seek, will have enough light shed to their own understanding that the all encompassing TRUTH will be known. I do strongly feel that the process is one of both spiritual and intellectual process, where combined they allow a synergistic thought process and more complete enlightenment. However, there needs to be self-motivation and steps taken in order to fully achieve the enlightenment and reward, if you will.


At times, I like to think that I'm in a pretty light room. In reality, I, like most others here, are probably more in the dark than we would like to acknowledge. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Sorry for my ramblings. I'm sure many will disagree with me, and that's fine.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

I also believe that no matter how much we learn here, we are in a pretty dark grey as much as the light is concerned. Taking some of the passages that AA cited above, I feel that where learning becomes a problem is when we feel we are reaching a point where we know enough that we stop learning or compare ourselves to others because we know more than they do and become prideful.

I agree with you on this Sizzle.

Even the most atheistic secular humanist has to admit that as far as the laws of physics go we have no explanation for the existence of the universe. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as far as we can observe so how did everything that makes up the universe come into being? That unanswered question alone puts all of us in a very "dark gray" area regarding the existence of the universe in general.

That by no means is evidence for the existence of God -- however it should humble us all quite a bit. I personally could even accept the possibility that life could have originated from inorganic matter and become increasingly complex through the process of natural selection. But how did all this inorganic matter come into the universe prior to all that? Nobody knows. We humans really have no reason to be cocky about our scientific knowledge.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I agree with you on this Sizzle.

Even the most atheistic secular humanist has to admit that as far as the laws of physics go we have no explanation for the existence of the universe. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed as far as we can observe so how did everything that makes up the universe come into being? That unanswered question alone puts all of us in a very "dark gray" area regarding the existence of the universe in general.

That by no means is evidence for the existence of God -- however it should humble us all quite a bit. I personally could even accept the possibility that life could have originated from inorganic matter and become increasingly complex through the process of natural selection. But how did all this inorganic matter come into the universe prior to all that? Nobody knows. We humans really have no reason to be cocky about our scientific knowledge.

And I think that was the point in my rambling that I was trying to make. No matter how far along we get, and how much we learn, there are still things that when we die, we won't have learned. I think there is a point of learning that we can reach on our own, however, our learning can synergistically be magnified when combined with a spiritual growth.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

That by no means is evidence for the existence of God -- however it should humble us all quite a bit. I personally could even accept the possibility that life could have originated from inorganic matter and become increasingly complex through the process of natural selection. But how did all this inorganic matter come into the universe prior to all that?

The problem is, though, in our religious tradition, even matter is eternal, and cannot be created nor destroyed.

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Nobody knows. We humans really have no reason to be cocky about our scientific knowledge.

Which is why I laugh when some here from non-scientific disciplines jump the gun on determining whether something is real or not.