Intellectuals of the church defined

[Indy Coug]

Personally, I think an intellectual (in the LDS realm) is someone that tends to rely more conventional methods of learning (scientific method, established methods of critical analysis or whatever) and shows a reluctance to accept things solely or primarily as a result of seeking a spiritual witness.

If an "apparent" conflict exists between the rational and the spiritual, the rational wins out more often than not.

Thus an intellectual isn't necessarily a case of smart vs stupid, enlightened vs ignorant as it is how much they're willing to accept things on faith and use the prescribed scriptural methods for obtaining and growing their faith.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Personally, I think an intellectual (in the LDS realm) is someone that tends to rely more conventional methods of learning (scientific method, established methods of critical analysis or whatever) and shows a reluctance to accept things solely or primarily as a result of seeking a spiritual witness.

If an "apparent" conflict exists between the rational and the spiritual, the rational wins out more often than not.

Thus an intellectual isn't necessarily a case of smart vs stupid, enlightened vs ignorant as it is how much they're willing to accept things on faith and use the prescribed scriptural methods of growing their faith.

This definition is workable, or at least a reasonable starting point, except for the statement about conflicts. I've known intellectuals who don't allow reason to win out, but hold things in suspension and operate in an orthopractical manner.

[UtahDan]

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 agree that it is remarkably ill defined and particularly so since it seems to be a perjorative for many people who don't deserve it.

I would define it as broadly as anyone who does any kind of thinking or study outside of church or anyone who critically examines their faith and looks for answers. When I think of intellectual I am thinking of any person who is attempting to synthesize what the gospel teaches them and what they have learned from any other source.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If an "apparent" conflict exists between the rational and the spiritual, the rational wins out more often than not.

If true then I am no intellectual. If I can't resolve the discrepancy I take it on faith, but my preference is always to harmonize the two if I can.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

When I think of intellectual I am thinking of any person who is attempting to synthesize what the gospel teaches them and what they have learned from any other source.

Now you're way too broad. You're now describing a majority of the church. There may be some who refuse to incorporate scientific findings on evolution into their view of the creation, but that would be a small minority.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Now you're way too broad. You're now describing a majority of the church. There may be some who refuse to incorporate scientific findings on evolution into their view of the creation, but that would be a small minority.

I'm telling you how I self-identify. I happen to think that it is a very big group and that the perjorative term only rightly applies to a very small group.

[jay santos]

Bottom line is that any description of "intellectual" or "alternate voice" or however you label the group that Mauss and SIEQ are talking about, you can't do so without including some sort of negative connotation:
controversial, anti-LDS, non-mainstream, critical of church leaders, etc. If you can't define the group without including those negative connotations, then how can you seriously make a claim about big brother looking over your shoulder or discrimination for leadership positions?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If an "apparent" conflict exists between the rational and the spiritual, the rational wins out more often than not.

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?

[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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would identify UtahDan, Indy....

Indy one of us just got a really nice compliment and one of us just got really insulted. ;-)