Mauss on Fundamentalism and Intellectualism in Mormonism

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

A reasonable request. I never just pull things like that out of my backside as I consider integrity both a personal and professional obligation. I'm quite sure that I read that in the BYU sociology depts. study from a few years ago, but I can try and verify it. I'm positive that I'm not just making it up.

As to treating the church as a monolith: Maybe. That was certainly a strong tendency for some intellectuals in Mauss' generation.

I hope what you heard me say was not "oh yeah, prove it." I'm just genuinely unaware of them but if they are as you say (which I have no reason to doubt BTW) they may well cause me to modify my view. I was hoping maybe you had some one hand or could point me to them.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I think Mauss is making a distinction in terms of effort (at least in those respective areas). It seems to more or less be one of activity/passivity.

Fair enough. I think I am trying to engage in a dialogue over whether he is right to suggest (again not having read it all I am inferring this is the suggestion) that they effort is always worth while, at least as to things such as the "horses and the BOM" example I offered before. I think I hear you saying that the line between gospel principles and applications of principles can be blurry and I agree that it can be. When I read that, many examples leapt to mind of the where the line is blurry, as did many more examples of where it isn't.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I think we are talking past each other a bit.

I don't think laziness is the issue, but with the other choices being active intellectual inquiry or fundamentalism, your approach would fit into Mauss' third category.

I also don't think recognizing the limitations of your powers of reason is the issue. That you find certain behaviors justified as a result of that recognition probably is.

I'm not sure what behaviors you are referring to here. I should also hasten to add that I am not against intellectual inquiry. Obviously I know enough about many of the areas of debate to have formed and opinion about them. What I am saying is that I am only willing to go down that road so far because I begin to lose sight of the utility of that exercise at some point. Mauss seems to be saying that it is good for me to do this because when I am confronted with yet more ambiguities I will ....what? Maybe this is what is not clear to me. Again, his critique of the fundamentalist makes sense, I'm just not sure how skepticism helps me in that situation. That is not a plug for fundamentalism, just me saying that I don't practically know how he thinks skepticism is better. Since you have read the book maybe you can tell me.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

It's not what I'm suggesting. Joseph had both fundamentalist and intellectual tendencies in different contexts. But he was not satisfied with "We just don't know." His persistance on the questions of his day lead him to not be satisfied with the status quo--a preference for the status quo being an anti-progressive position that just doesn't square with needing modern revelation. Some church members want a president but not a prophet--at least not in the revelatory sense. They're satisfied that questions won't be answered and so don't even ask.

I'm open to suggestions here, but I don't see how anyone gets around "we just don't know" as the answer to any number of questions. I think we have no choice but to be satisfied with that answer on any number of fronts if we want to stay in. Nor do I think that Joseph got all of the answers to his questions. Don't misunderstand, I see nothing wrong with asking all the questions you want because there are in fact answers to a great many of them. But when you get down to the issues that people leave the church over, you are no longer in the "easily answered" category and that point you have three choices: (1) the church isn't true (2) mental gymnastics (either from a fundamentalist point of view or an intellectual point of view) (3) acceptance of ambiguity. If Mauss is arguing that intellectual gynastics better prepare me to deal with new ambiguities than exercising faith and accepting them does then I can only say that is not true for me in my experience.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

As to refining vs. undermining--I'm quite sure I can't always parse them and think that in some contexts they are part and parcel of the same growth process. In my experience one won't find the sword of wisdom until s/he puts down the club of knowledge, and the fire of understanding requires the same of wisdom. Steps forward can begin with steps down, a fact to which the story of Adam & Eve attests.

I think what you are saying is true in some contexts and not others. As I attempt to understand the atonement I think you are absolutely right about the process involved and I think it is a worthy and necessary effort. I can run over to an anti-site and pick out their top 5 gripes about the gospel, on the other hand, and recognize that much of what they are saying is going to be beyond my ability to resolve either with evidence or by reason. Others may disagree, but I don't personally find any utility in beating my head against that wall beyond that recognition.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

That you aren't aware of the tensions between fundamentalists and intellectuals in the Church is forgivable, but naive. Have you not heard of the Strengthening the Members committee that reads Sunstone and Dialogue and calls local leaders to report on people? Do you not know that fundamentalist leaning leaders have singled out intellectuals for Church discipline without permission from the First Presidency and against the handbook of instructions (which says that all Church Disciplinary action should start at the local level)? Do you not know that other General Authorities have tried to step in and stop such actions, including the First Presidency? Have you not observed how fundamentalists are keeping intellectuals out of leadership callings? Have you not noticed that the number of real general authority scholars has plummeted in the last 50 years? Have you not witnessed the fundamentalists teaching Protestant Evangelical folk doctrine under the auspices of Mormon doctrine? Have you not noticed that the missionary program is tailored to non-intellectual converts? I could go on like this for hours.

Just three weeks ago in sacrament meeting I sat through someone expressing strident disdain for "those pointy-headed Korihor's at the University" [an exact quote], a call for unquestioning obedience, and a wholesale condemnation of art. That, friend, is RAGING FUNDAMENTALISM and no one in leadership did anything in the face of myself and about a dozen other people in the congregation being singled out as evil. About 8 minutes in I went to the foyer to get a drink and some air, and found a ward member and friend in tears over the talk. She's getting a PhD in violin performance, loves art, and doesn't understand the hate being heaped on her. My wife and I had her and her husband over for FHE a week ago Monday and talked about things. I have this crazy notion that it was a way to show love for my neighbor.

But hey, none of this matters according to you. The attitude in your post evidences little love for your neighbor and a whole lot of the kind of indifference cultivated by American consumer culture.





Your uncertainity does not constitute on argument. And your unfamiliarity with commonly held views of your fellow Church members is not an argument either. The point is not that some take things on faith and other's don't. For Mauss, faith functions differently in these different styles of thinking.



Your opinion of how the debate goes and what is at stake bears no semblance to reality. The fact that you think it "doesn't really matter" only evidences that you haven't a clue as to what's going on.



Your not liking the word "intellectual" doesn't mean you get to define it how you please and conflate it arbitrarily with fundamentalism. People in both camps would object to such conflation. Your opinion that someone is an "idiot" would be irrelevant if it wasn't getting in the way of real issues.

I'm sorry if you're not feeling the love for me on this issue. There are many issues in the church. This one doesn't make the top 10 in my book. I'm sorry that the second counselor in a ward out in the mission field said something to hurt the "intellectuals" feelings. This hardly constitutes a mass movement in the leadership in the church.

This is a church of 12 MM people. If you can show me where thousands of intellectuals are being disciplined, then I'll listen to you. Anecdotal evidence shouldn't satisfy an intellectual.

I knew an intellectual in my last ward. He's a great man and I love him. He'll never make it up the ladder of priesthood hierarchy, but it's not due to fundamentalist priesthood leaders keeping the intellectual man down.

The church is an organization. Maybe intellectuals need to study organizational behavior to figure out how to infiltrate the ranks. By my observation, this is how it works.

Bishops look for potential counselors that are good with people, they work hard in all their callings, do their home teaching, they're open with their faith, bearing testimony often, and know how to kiss butt.

The stake president turns the best bishopric counselors into high councilmen. Then they turn them into bishops. The best bishops go into the stake presidency and the best stake presidency counselor is the next stake president.

The critiria at each step is usually dedication and commitment to the establishment, not publications in academic journals or sacrament talks that have long words that people can't understand.

Instead of whining that you don't have an important church calling, I would recommend if it means that much to you, to analyze the process, and try to do your best to mimic those that are getting noticed for those callings.

P.S. since you're an intellectual I guess you get to define it how you want, but I consider an intellectual someone who is smart.

[creekster]

I haven't had a chance to really digest this interesting thread, but there is one issue that I just can't seem to grasp: what is an intellectual? I gather it is being defined by Mauss as someone making an active effort to utilise reason-based strategies to engage their faith. What does that mean? DOes it mean that if you have questions you read a lot and ask other people about it? Why is the approach described as passive necessarily non-intellectual? If you ask questions about your beliefs that you are unable to answer through reason-based strategies leading you to rely on faith as a spiritual experience why is that non- or a-intellectual?

If the answer is that category two is only those persons that NEVER use anything but reason based strategies to deal with their faith then my guess is that this group will be very small or very apostate and perhaps both. Instead, it seems much more likely to me that there will a very blurred line between groups two and three, which then makes the anlaysis more difficult but more sensical, at least to me.

Of course, I haven't really read this closely, so I could be wrong.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

I haven't had a chance to really digest this interesting thread, but there is one issue that I just can't seem to grasp: what is an intellectual? I gather it is being defined by Mauss as someone making an active effort to utilise reason-based strategies to engage their faith. What does that mean? DOes it mean that if you have questions you read a lot and ask other people about it? Why is the approach described as passive necessarily non-intellectual? If you ask questions about your beliefs that you are unable to answer through reason-based strategies leading you to rely on faith as a spiritual experience why is that non- or a-intellectual?

If the answer is that category two is only those persons that NEVER use anything but reason based strategies to deal with their faith then my guess is that this group will be very small or very apostate and perhaps both. Instead, it seems much more likely to me that there will a very blurred line between groups two and three, which then makes the anlaysis more difficult but more sensical, at least to me.

Of course, I haven't really read this closely, so I could be wrong.

In other words, you bought what UtahDan was selling. *Bows*

:-)

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

In other words, you bought what UtahDan was selling. *Bows*

:-)

I suppose so. It could also be that I am firmly in the third group and don't want to admit it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Have you not noticed that the number of real general authority scholars has plummeted in the last 50 years? Have you not witnessed the fundamentalists teaching Protestant Evangelical folk doctrine under the auspices of Mormon doctrine?

Fascinating discussion, EQ.

In your opinion, who were the "GA scholars" prior to 50 years ago? Who would you put in that camp today?

Can you give some examples of what you consider to be Protestant Evangelical folk doctrine?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Fascinating discussion, EQ.

In your opinion, who were the "GA scholars" prior to 50 years ago? Who would you put in that camp today?

Can you give some examples of what you consider to be Protestant Evangelical folk doctrine?

Here's a quote from Mauss (and I basically agree with it): "Apostles appointed during that period [about 1900-1950] included a generous proportion of men with demonstrated scholarly credentials and accomplishments in the world's terms--men such as David O. Mckay, James E. Talmage, Richard R. Lyman, John A. Widtsoe, and Joseph F. Merrill--who together constituted a third of all the apostles appointed in the twentieth century up to President Clark's [as in J. Reuben] time. These were men of undoubted relgious commitment and church loyalty who nevertheless were comfortable with worldly learning and confident that Mormonism could not only hold its own in intellectual competition but perhaps even find some of its vindication therein.

Among the thirty or so apostles appointed since President Clark's arrival, those with backgrounds in business or law have been favored to the near exclusion of any with training in scholarly pursuits. Dallin Oaks, and perhaps one or two other recent appointments, would constitute exceptions to this generalization. Yet even those few with some academic backgrounds tend (with perhaps the exception of Oaks) to have earned their distinctions more in academic administration than in scholarship per se (Deseret News, 1990: 15-18, 46-52)." (82-83).

As an aside, Elder Oaks has stuck his neck out a few times to keep intellectuals from being discriminated against in the Church. Elder Hugh B. Brown did this alot. Thomas S. Monson helped throw the breaks on Ezra Taft Benson's hunting expeditions on BYU campus in the late 1970s.

Mauss gives several examples of Protestant Evangelical Folk Doctrine in his chapter on Folk Fundamentalism: Anti-Evolutionary positions, the belief in Satanic cult conspiracies (a must read, very interesting how a member of the presiding Bishopric got mixed up in this), millennial survivalism, the victorianish "cult of true womanhood" stuff, hyper-word of wisdom teachings and practices, anti-contraception stands (borrowed from both the evangelicals and the Catholics), prudery on sex in general...

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm sorry if you're not feeling the love for me on this issue. There are many issues in the church. This one doesn't make the top 10 in my book. I'm sorry that the second counselor in a ward out in the mission field said something to hurt the "intellectuals" feelings. This hardly constitutes a mass movement in the leadership in the church.

I'm not hating on you, jay, but I do want to make a point. And it isn't so much about hurt feelings as it is that some people are encouraged to express their views (and even to assert that they are Church Doctrine) while other people are not. Read Mauss' book and you'll get a sense of what the issues are in Church leadersip. His argument is not hastily asserted.

Originally Posted by jay santos

This is a church of 12 MM people. If you can show me where thousands of intellectuals are being disciplined, then I'll listen to you. Anecdotal evidence shouldn't satisfy an intellectual.

What do you want, an inquisition? There's plenty of evidence for anyone who'll take the time to look for it. Moreover, the point is that intellectuals are silenced. The silence of intellectual discourse IS evidence. Do you hear many intellectual perspectives in Church meetings? Intellectuals are being encouraged to self-censor or be forever removed from official influence. Not exactly in line with God not being a respecter of persons is it? It's not the way Jesus did things either: He had dialogue with the learned, the outcasts, children, his disciples, everyone.

And your response here typifies the problem. You haven't addressed hardly any of my arguments, you've just ignored them in favor of asserting your own opinion.

Originally Posted by jay santos

The church is an organization. Maybe intellectuals need to study organizational behavior to figure out how to infiltrate the ranks. By my observation, this is how it works.

Infiltrate the ranks? Here's more of your calloused American Consumer Culture thinking: everyone for himself. How very un-Christian. You are evidencing a serious case of hegemony: you're asserting ideological practice as objective reality.

And I have no interest in striving for a leadership calling. Actually, in some senses I'm glad to have been in the Primary organization for the last three years because it insulates me from attitudes such as yours.

Originally Posted by jay santos

Bishops look for potential counselors that are good with people, they work hard in all their callings, do their home teaching, they're open with their faith, bearing testimony often, and know how to kiss butt.

The stake president turns the best bishopric counselors into high councilmen. Then they turn them into bishops. The best bishops go into the stake presidency and the best stake presidency counselor is the next stake president.

The critiria at each step is usually dedication and commitment to the establishment, not publications in academic journals or sacrament talks that have long words that people can't understand. .

And here you concede the argument in whole. Mauss' point is that the Church is biasing one style of thinking over another. This is exactly what you are suggesting should (and does) happen. Thank you for embodying his argument.

Moreover, your use of dicto simpliciter (over simplification) in terms of intellectual activity is ridiculous. Many intellectuals are just as dedicated as anyone else when it comes to church activity and testimony. I begrudge your insinuation to the contrary.

If you have credibility you will now admit that you have an ideological notion of "best" and are basically telling intellectuals in the Church to "eat cake."

Originally Posted by jay santos

Instead of whining that you don't have an important church calling, I would recommend if it means that much to you, to analyze the process, and try to do your best to mimic those that are getting noticed for those callings.

P.S. since you're an intellectual I guess you get to define it how you want, but I consider an intellectual someone who is smart.

Whining? Interesting. To suggest whining is to assume that you are in a position of power and, in this instance, to arbitrarily assert criticism as a diminuitive. What Mauss is engaging in is constructive criticism, and your assertion of whining only furthers that there is a problem in the Church. You think that your approach to the gospel is superior, and implicitly, that you deserve the privilege you receive. "All is well in Zion," in this sense, according to you. Mauss and I are arguing that a healthy tension between styles of thought is in the best interest of the Church. I'm not trying to drive out fundamentalists or Mauss' "herd" (not the best word choice), just looking for equal ground.

I wouldn't say that an intellectual is someone who is smart. Intellectuals often have smarts of a kind because they are dedicated to study. Many lawyers, physicians, professionals, construction workers, and others can be smart without being intellectuals. Fundamentalists can be smart (like Cleon Skousen, for example), they just aren't considered intellectuals or "learned scholars" by the people who determine such things (Academics, mostly). Put simply, intellectuals, in the way Mauss describes them, while often "smart," certainly don't have a monopoly on High IQs or some other measure of superior intelligence. For him, intellectual is a style of thinking that is cultivated by scholarly activity.

I am now going back to my discussion with UtahDan, as it is actually productive.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm not hating on you, jay, but I do want to make a point. And it isn't so much about hurt feelings as it is that some people are encouraged to express their views (and even to assert that they are Church Doctrine) while other people are not. Read Mauss' book and you'll get a sense of what the issues are in Church leadersip. His argument is not hastily asserted.



What do you want, an inquisition? There's plenty of evidence for anyone who'll take the time to look for it. Moreover, the point is that intellectuals are silenced. The silence of intellectual discourse IS evidence. Do you hear many intellectual perspectives in Church meetings? Intellectuals are being encouraged to self-censor or be forever removed from official influence. Not exactly in line with God not being a respecter of persons is it? It's not the way Jesus did things either: He had dialogue with the learned, the outcasts, children, his disciples, everyone.

And your response here typifies the problem. You haven't addressed hardly any of my arguments, you've just ignored them in favor of asserting your own opinion.





Infiltrate the ranks? Here's more of your calloused American Consumer Culture thinking: everyone for himself. How very un-Christian. You are evidencing a serious case of hegemony: you're asserting ideological practice as objective reality.

And I have no interest in striving for a leadership calling. Actually, in some senses I'm glad to have been in the Primary organization for the last three years because it insulates me from attitudes such as yours.



And here you concede the argument in whole. Mauss' point is that the Church is biasing one style of thinking over another. This is exactly what you are suggesting should (and does) happen. Thank you for embodying his argument.

Moreover, your use of dicto simpliciter (over simplification) in terms of intellectual activity is ridiculous. Many intellectuals are just as dedicated as anyone else when it comes to church activity and testimony. I begrudge your insinuation to the contrary.

If you have credibility you will now admit that you have an ideological notion of "best" and are basically telling intellectuals in the Church to "eat cake."



Whining? Interesting. To suggest whining is to assume that you are in a position of power and, in this instance, to arbitrarily assert criticism as a diminuitive. What Mauss is engaging in is constructive criticism, and your assertion of whining only furthers that there is a problem in the Church. You think that your approach to the gospel is superior, and implicitly, that you deserve the privilege you receive. "All is well in Zion," in this sense, according to you. Mauss and I are arguing that a healthy tension between styles of thought is in the best interest of the Church. I'm not trying to drive out fundamentalists or Mauss' "herd" (not the best word choice), just looking for equal ground.

I wouldn't say that an intellectual is someone who is smart. Intellectuals often have smarts of a kind because they are dedicated to study. Many lawyers, physicians, professionals, construction workers, and others can be smart without being intellectuals. Fundamentalists can be smart (like Cleon Skousen, for example), they just aren't considered intellectuals or "learned scholars" by the people who determine such things (Academics, mostly). Put simply, intellectuals, in the way Mauss describes them, while often "smart," certainly don't have a monopoly on High IQs or some other measure of superior intelligence. For him, intellectual is a style of thinking that is cultivated by scholarly activity.

I am now going back to my discussion with UtahDan, as it is actually productive.

I know we're not going to make any headway here, so let me just hit the highlights without trying to make it too personal.

1. I'd like you to replace the word intellectual with academic. You're a good guy, and you're a smart guy. But what seperates you and your academic peers from the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of other professional, successful, intelligent men in the church is not your ability to think with an "intellectual style cultivated by scholarly activity", it's simply your status as a professor. If you try to create an illusion of more of it than that, then you will lose me and the rest of your audience.

2. I don't see that your peer group is underrepresented at high priesthood levels. Based on what I'm hearing is your definition as an "intellectual", it sounds like you're excluding business people, lawyers, medical professionals, engineers, IT professionals, accountants, actuaries, teachers (high school and below), and scientists. And you're including only college professors, but not just all college professors, I imagine you're excluding college professors of engineering, business, law, science, computer programming, etc. and only counting college professors of history, humanities, philosophy, politics, etc. Is this correct? What percent of the total of priesthood holding, dedicated, faithful Mormon men does this group make? Do you deserve to be overrepresented in church leadership? I don't, and this is why what you're saying sounds like whining to me. I think you're missing the mark on what makes a good priesthood leader. Dedication is valued ten fold over intelligence (and this is my definition--if it's your definition that it's valued hundred fold). I'm hearing from you that you think that is wrong and that you and your peers in a small, niche group should be given special treatments.

3. Show me some stats. Don't give me anecdotal evidence of an intellectual getting inappropriately disciplined. There are many problems or perceived problems in the church when it comes to "personnel" issues: racism, regionalism, nepotism, bias against short people or fat people, bias favoring athletes or schmoozers/butt kissers.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I know we're not going to make any headway here, so let me just hit the highlights without trying to make it too personal.

1. I'd like you to replace the word intellectual with academic. You're a good guy, and you're a smart guy. But what seperates you and your academic peers from the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of other professional, successful, intelligent men in the church is not your ability to think with an "intellectual style cultivated by scholarly activity", it's simply your status as a professor. If you try to create an illusion of more of it than that, then you will lose me and the rest of your audience.

2. I don't see that your peer group is underrepresented at high priesthood levels. Based on what I'm hearing is your definition as an "intellectual", it sounds like you're excluding business people, lawyers, medical professionals, engineers, IT professionals, accountants, actuaries, teachers (high school and below), and scientists. And you're including only college professors, but not just all college professors, I imagine you're excluding college professors of engineering, business, law, science, computer programming, etc. and only counting college professors of history, humanities, philosophy, politics, etc. Is this correct? What percent of the total of priesthood holding, dedicated, faithful Mormon men does this group make? Do you deserve to be overrepresented in church leadership? I don't, and this is why what you're saying sounds like whining to me. I think you're missing the mark on what makes a good priesthood leader. Dedication is valued ten fold over intelligence (and this is my definition--if it's your definition that it's valued hundred fold). I'm hearing from you that you think that is wrong and that you and your peers in a small, niche group should be given special treatments.

3. Show me some stats. Don't give me anecdotal evidence of an intellectual getting inappropriately disciplined. There are many problems or perceived problems in the church when it comes to "personnel" issues: racism, regionalism, nepotism, bias against short people or fat people, bias favoring athletes or schmoozers/butt kissers.

The audience will speak for itself (or not). The boundary is not “my status as a professor,” (and I won’t be a professor until next fall although I’ve been teaching classes for years), and the issue is not one of me trying to create an illusion of an intellectual being something “more” than an academic. “Intellectual” is a style of thinking, and is one that, in a religious context, can rely on faith just as do Mauss’ other styles of thinking. In artistic terms, intellectual is an aesthetic of being. An analogy may be helpful: High-Renaissance portraiture, 19th century panorama, and abstract expressionism all rely on paint (or on “faith”), even though they have different assumptions about the purpose of painting, the relationship of the painter to her/his work, and the role of geometric form and anti-form. To extend the analogy, portrait painters in the Church have a tendency to think that abstract expressionists are just scribbling and portrait painters only want portraiture discussed in the studio (Church). They only want portrait masters teaching people how to paint.

Speaking of faithful General Authority intellectuals who were called in the first half of the twentieth century, Mauss writes that they were, “men of undoubted religious commitment and church loyalty who nevertheless were comfortable with worldly learning and confident that Mormonism could not only hold its own in intellectual competition but perhaps even find some of its vindication therein.”
A career in academia can certainly “cultivate” this way (or style) of approaching Mormonism, and many Mormon academics are intellectuals in that sense. People in other careers, such as law, medicine, chemical engineering, accounting, management, high school teaching, homemaking, etc., can think this way, and sometimes do think this way, but their careers don’t encourage it as strongly as academia does. Some of these careers, while attractive to very intelligent and motivated people, actively de-value the kind of intellectual competition that intellectuals thrive on. You’re trying to paint me as some kind of an elitist on this issue, but I’m not. You’re asserting that I’m talking about a very small group of mostly humanities and liberal arts professors, but I’m doing nothing of the kind. People from many fields of endeavor can be intellectuals. Such people have a commonality with most academics in their commitment to find healthy competition and perhaps vindication of their religion through means valued by scholars. This does not mean they must be academics, let alone ones of a particular stripe. In short, you’ve constructed another strawman.

If one uses the past as a gage, there are many fewer Intellectuals among the General Authorities today than there were earlier in the 20th century. Today, almost no GA's use this style to engage the Gospel. You ask for evidence, even while ignoring the almost complete lack of the intellectual approaches in the official meetings of the Church, an approach that was acceptable and even popular in decades past. You ask for evidence, but ignore the endless works by today’s general authorities that don’t take this approach (and even, in some cases, begrudge it). You ask for evidence as you ignore almost every Conference talk of recent decades (with a few notable exceptions). You ask for evidence as every Sunday goes by with little or no evidence of the intellectual approach in most Church meetings (and with intellectuals being encouraged to self-censor or be punished in the eyes of their fellow parishioners). You ask for evidence as you ignore logic, and fail to deploy either of them yourself. There is evidence and reason everywhere, and if it’s statistics you want, READ MAUSS’ book—he draws on many of them. Statistics about Mormon’s scores on indexes of fundamentalism (and over time) are scattered throughout the “Angel and the Beehive.” Mormons score higher on indexes of fundamentalism (which is anti-intellectual, by definition) than they did 50 years ago. Maybe you’ll need to get out of your comfort zone, maybe you’re just being lazy by demanding I be your personal information gopher, but you should READ THE BOOK!

Elder Oaks (God bless him!) approaches the Gospel intellectually and you can hear it in his talks (if you know what you’re listening to). A few conferences back he even took a position on an issue that’s been floating through Dialogue (a publication he helped start and that some of his fellow Quorum members would like to see shut down) and FARMS about BoM geography. In the mid-90s his intellectual style contributed to his disagreeing with President Faust on the origins of homosexuality (and in the pages of the Ensign, no less).

Again, your notion of “What makes a good Priesthood leader” is ideological. Your thinking is circular. Your categorization of unequal voices in the Church as “personnel issues” is repugnant. The very way you have gone about this discussion is evidence of the strength of Mauss’ observations. In your previous post you conceded the argument by saying that there is a certain kind of “good” priesthood leader, and then by asserting that intellectuals somehow aren’t it. I have had rather enough of your insinuations that intellectuals are somehow less faithful, have weak testimonies, or somehow aren’t good for the Church in various capacities. You are failing to examine your own assumptions, and have the temerity to assert them as objective truth.

You are part of the problem. You think everyone should be painting Renaissance portraits and that therefore all positions of influence should be held by portrait masters. I'm happy to let you paint all the portraits you want, I'm just asking that my faith not be questioned because I use my paint in ways that rival Jackson Pollock.