Intellectuals of the church defined

[jay santos]

What is an intellectual?

Is it any member of the church with an advanced degree? No. Throw out the doctors, lawyers, and MBA's.

Any member of the church with a PhD? No. Throw out the engineers, scientiests, mathematicians.

Any member of the church with a PhD in the liberal arts: philosophy, religion, history, politics, literature, etc.? No. Many of those guys don't have an interest or inclination to broach controversial LDS topics and are deemed part of the corporate church man.

Any member of the church with a PhD in liberal arts and interested in controversial LDS topics? No. Anyone who does so but who reaches conclusions that are pro-LDS or apologetic in nature would not get his intellectual card stamped.

So now we're down to members of the church with a PhD in liberal arts AND interested in controversial LDS topics AND ones who often reach controversial or anti-LDS conclusions.

I have a problem with the broad word "intellectual" being reserved for such a limited group.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I have a problem with the broad word "intellectual" being reserved for such a limited group.

I think most people would have a problem with this kind of definition as well. It's kind of a lame label that some take as a mark of honor; others use as a term of derision. Either way, it's all about blowing smoke up others' asses.

"Intellectuals" rarely feel threatened by reasoned, rational arguments - at least they shouldn't. It's the hyperbolic hysterical invective that pushes them to the fringes of the faith. They're members too. In theory, all they're asking is for two-way discourse; not be accepted as right.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

What is an intellectual?

Is it any member of the church with an advanced degree? No. Throw out the doctors, lawyers, and MBA's.

Any member of the church with a PhD? No. Throw out the engineers, scientiests, mathematicians.

Any member of the church with a PhD in the liberal arts: philosophy, religion, history, politics, literature, etc.? No. Many of those guys don't have an interest or inclination to broach controversial LDS topics and are deemed part of the corporate church man.

Any member of the church with a PhD in liberal arts and interested in controversial LDS topics? No. Anyone who does so but who reaches conclusions that are pro-LDS or apologetic in nature would not get his intellectual card stamped.

So now we're down to members of the church with a PhD in liberal arts AND interested in controversial LDS topics AND ones who often reach controversial or anti-LDS conclusions.

I have a problem with the broad word "intellectual" being reserved for such a limited group.

I think you are trying to get too specific. I don't think it has anything to do with the level of education of a person. I think when most people use the term in the church, they are referring to any person who questions/criticizes/debates any church policy, point of doctrine or leader based on temporal knowledge/understanding (such as logical or deductive reasoning).

In other words, they take the scripture in Jacob about "being learned is good if you hearken unto the counsel of the Lord" and assume that being learned is bad if you question any policy/doctrine/leader (which they conflate into being "counsel of the Lord").

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you are trying to get too specific. I don't think it has anything to do with the level of education of a person. I think when most people use the term in the church, they are referring to any person who questions/criticizes/debates any church policy, point of doctrine or leader based on temporal knowledge/understanding (such as logical or deductive reasoning).

In other words, they take the scripture in Jacob about "being learned is good if you hearken unto the counsel of the Lord" and assume that being learned is bad if you question any policy/doctrine/leader (which they conflate into being "counsel of the Lord").

Now we're seeing the problems with this word. I was looking for the definition of the group as defined by the group themselves, not a derisive term slapped on the group from the mullahs.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Now we're seeing the problems with this word. I was looking for the definition of the group as defined by the group themselves, not a derisive term slapped on the group from the mullahs.

Which was exactly what I was trying to do yesterday with SEIQ re: "alternative voices".

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Now we're seeing the problems with this word. I was looking for the definition of the group as defined by the group themselves, not a derisive term slapped on the group from the mullahs.

I don't know if it is a term used by the "intellectuals." I know Rocky has called me an "intellectual" on many occasions, yet I certainly have never felt part of some mysterious "intellectual" camp. I think it is a term reserved for derision within the church.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know if it is a term used by the "intellectuals." I know Rocky has called me an "intellectual" on many occasions, yet I certainly have never felt part of some mysterious "intellectual" camp. I think it is a term reserved for derision within the church.

It's used by Mauss, and it's frequently used by SIEQ. The reason I think it's important to define is that I'd like to explore this notion that there is a group being ostracized, bullied, and discriminated against for leadership in the church. From what I understand so far, I've accused the group of whining and self-victimization. I may be out of line, and if so, I'd like to identify where my thinking is faulty. Part of that is to understand how this group is self-defined. If there is a better definition than the one I suggested in the initial post of this thread, I'd like to hear it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't know if it is a term used by the "intellectuals." I know Rocky has called me an "intellectual" on many occasions, yet I certainly have never felt part of some mysterious "intellectual" camp. I think it is a term reserved for derision within the church.

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

[Archaea]

When the term "intellectual" is used derisively, and it usually is in Church context, it's usually applied to somebody examines an issue or issues in an academic or "critical", not pejorative, but investigative, manner.

Many persons in sales and in other walks of life do not engage in "critical" examination and are uncomfortable with the exercise. They view anybody who does this, as potentially evil, the Spawn of Satan, as Rocky would have it.

Should we walk by faith alone? Maybe, I don't know. I can't, even if I should. I like to know answers, search for them. Faith alone would leave me blind.

I am not an academic nor a deep thinker (actually shallow most of the time), so in most senses I am not an intellectual, but being a lawyer has given me the ability to critically analyze. And I do walk by faith, every time I pay tithing or try to fulfill my religious covenants. I just don't function only by faith.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Now we're seeing the problems with this word. I was looking for the definition of the group as defined by the group themselves, not a derisive term slapped on the group from the mullahs.

I think at the core is an objection by many that a group would self-identify as intellectuals. I think for many the term intellectual is something people use to identify the person as smart or deep thinker; the identification in that view should be bestowed from the outside and not the inside. This is why for many self identifying as an intellectual is seen as pretentious. I also think this is why the backlash to the self-identification was phrased in terms of "so called intellectuals" (see Elder Packer's, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council").