Intellectuals in the church

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by jay santos

That's because you define it differently. It seems there are as many definitions as people who comment on it. But the most common definition is:

An LDS intellectual (it's better to put it in quotes "intellectual") is one who likes to explore controversial church history or doctrinal topics, publishes in or reads Sunstone, is borderline apostate and probably should be excommunicated, usually believes the brethren are manipulative and anti-thinking, and doesn't really have a testimony.

I don't like the definition by the way.

I don't like the flip side, either. Or the definition the LDS intellectuals use to self-define themselves.

The reality, in my opinion, is that intellectualism is often affiliated with academics. Academics are drawn, for a wide variety of reasons the biggest of which is how the profession defines itself within society, to relish in doing many of the things you outlined above. Academics thrive off contraversy and wish to incite it. They are, in my view strongly influenced from Sparta, a bunch of needlenecked wankers. However, I would not be totally fair not to state that I feel academics do serve a good purpose. I don't think their influence is perhaps what they think it is, but who really recognizes their own insignificance?

There will always be cognitive dissonance for many LDS academics. That is a cross or Gethseamne many of them will have to bear. Some will do it better than others and some, especially with all the professional pressure that faith and the scientific method are at odds/the mormon church is anti academic freedom, will fold. However, other professions also have challenges that will cause them to question and lose their faith. The LDS Church is so much on the trail for academics because they often have the reputation of forcing their viewpoints on others in their wonderful open minded ivory towers. If there were no Church owned secular education, these witchunts might never have come to fruition.

I really think the LDS Church has been manipulated by the academics into believing the needlenecked wankers' influence is greater than it truly is.

[Archaea]

I see a true intellectual as one who uses critical thinking, scholarly study and develops that lifestyle of scholarship.

For that reason, I don't believe many are truly intellectuals. Not having met all of you, the ones who truly fall into that category, appear to be Dan, CHC, SIEQ, Solon, Pelagius and AA.

The rest of us employ some of the characteristics of intellectualism, but are in many respects too worldly, too consumed by consumerism or other isms to be true intellectuals.

I see the sobriquet as one of honor, requiring study and work, not bestowed lightly.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I see a true intellectual as one who uses critical thinking, scholarly study and develops that lifestyle of scholarship.

For that reason, I don't believe many are truly intellectuals. Not having met all of you, the ones who truly fall into that category, appear to be Dan, CHC, SIEQ, Solon, Pelagius and AA.

The rest of us employ some of the characteristics of intellectualism, but are in many respects too worldly, too consumed by consumerism or other isms to be true intellectuals.

I see the sobriquet as one of honor, requiring study and work, not bestowed lightly.

You should have told me this yesterday; I temporarily got my hopes up.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8161

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You should have told me this yesterday; I temporarily got my hopes up.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8161

Well you're nerdy, in a calculator, accountant sort of way, just not in an academic sort of way.

You remind me of a very good friend, an accountant, who sees things very plainly and doesn't care to discuss nuance too much, but he is an accountant down to the tee.

He has accounted for and can account for, every single penny which he has earned since graduation from college. I've seen his spreadsheets no less.

When we go on a trip together, he plans it out, measures our money and gives an accounting thereafter.

So the actuaries, accountants, finance nerds, fall into an entirely different category of nerdom. Fascinating all the same, but probably not the same attention to clothing and attire in the same manner as intellectuals.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What would that be?

I've mentioned this stuff before, and I'll answer the question but I don't want to offend SIEQ or anyone else, as I don't have any malice.

So when SIEQ talks about LDS intellectuals and quotes Mauss and when other LDS intellectuals speak, I gather the following. (I could be wrong, but this is my impression)

LDS intellectuals self-define themselves in an equally narrow and limited way as the anti-intellectuals define them. In order to be an lds intellectual you have to be interested in research of controversial LDS history and doctrine and come to conclusions that are controversial.

i.e. an LDS professor in history who researches Kirtland but doesn't ever publish anything controversial is just a church man/fundamentalist not an intellectual

an LDS professor whose research has nothing to do with LDS or religion in general but nonetheless is an intellectual in every sense of the word is also not considered an LDS intellectual

So the group is similarly narrowly defined. And, IMHO, is more a function of where you stand for or against the brethren, than your actual intellect or content or your intellectual projects.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I see a true intellectual as one who uses critical thinking, scholarly study and develops that lifestyle of scholarship.

For that reason, I don't believe many are truly intellectuals. Not having met all of you, the ones who truly fall into that category, appear to be Dan, CHC, SIEQ, Solon, Pelagius and AA.

The rest of us employ some of the characteristics of intellectualism, but are in many respects too worldly, too consumed by consumerism or other isms to be true intellectuals.

I see the sobriquet as one of honor, requiring study and work, not bestowed lightly.

I agree that's a reasonable definition of an intellectual, but not an LDS intellectual. You can't be LDS and have the intellectual traits stated above to become an LDS intellecual. It's a different animal.

Intellectualism is sometimes interesting to me, and I sometimes I wish I could qualify more as an intellectual, but it gets down to it, it bores me too much. Logic--that's the interesting stuff to me.

[Indy Coug]

Can a person be an apologist and an intellectual simultaneously?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I've mentioned this stuff before, and I'll answer the question but I don't want to offend SIEQ or anyone else, as I don't have any malice.

So when SIEQ talks about LDS intellectuals and quotes Mauss and when other LDS intellectuals speak, I gather the following. (I could be wrong, but this is my impression)

LDS intellectuals self-define themselves in an equally narrow and limited way as the anti-intellectuals define them. In order to be an lds intellectual you have to be interested in research of controversial LDS history and doctrine and come to conclusions that are controversial.

i.e. an LDS professor in history who researches Kirtland but doesn't ever publish anything controversial is just a church man/fundamentalist not an intellectual

an LDS professor whose research has nothing to do with LDS or religion in general but nonetheless is an intellectual in every sense of the word is also not considered an LDS intellectual

So the group is similarly narrowly defined. And, IMHO, is more a function of where you stand for or against the brethren, than your actual intellect or content or your intellectual projects.

Oh brother.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the definition.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Can a person be an apologist and an intellectual simultaneously?

Depends on whose definition you are selecting. I don't think they are the same thing. Both can be scholarly, both can be well-trained, but a true intellectual, not wannabe, has no agenda and will take the path wherever his reason guides him. An apologist is weary of the path and stays on the known path.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I see a true intellectual as one who uses critical thinking, scholarly study and develops that lifestyle of scholarship.

For that reason, I don't believe many are truly intellectuals. Not having met all of you, the ones who truly fall into that category, appear to be Dan, CHC, SIEQ, Solon, Pelagius and AA.

The rest of us employ some of the characteristics of intellectualism, but are in many respects too worldly, too consumed by consumerism or other isms to be true intellectuals.

I see the sobriquet as one of honor, requiring study and work, not bestowed lightly.

Damnit... I hate being a simpleton...