The Mormon Intellectuals’ Trojan Horses

[The Folk Prophet]

Just read this article and found it highly fascinating and quite insightful:

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-mormon-intellectuals-trojan-horses/

 

Not sure how much discussion it will generate, but, from my perspective at least, it's fairly spot on.

 

For those who don't wish to read through it, the Trojan horses it lists that intellectuals use to undermine the church are:

 

1. Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.
2. Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”.
3. Overemphasizing the importance of church history.
4. Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.

 

As I've seen a significant amount of just these issues, constantly repeated even here in this forum, I thought there might be some interesting discussion (or debate) to come of it. 

[Urstadt]

That was an excellent read. I was thinking about where I work (analogous to the church). My boss, (analogous to the prophet) constantly supervises our site and is always making suggestions, adjusting policy, amending paperwork procedures, and (he'd be the first to admit it) making mistakes. Much of the changes made in the past two years have been corrections and adjustments to previous policies/procedures laid out by previous supervisors (analogous to church history). Sometimes my boss says, "This is how it is," and then comes back a month or two later and says, "After talking with the legal department, it actually needs to be this way." (Analogous to fallibility of the prophets and "thus saith the Lord." Having said all that, my current boss is the best boss I've ever worked for and is still very good at what he does despite being human.

 

I would not just up and leave my place of employment merely because fallible bosses make changes, sometimes make mistakes, and set rules above me that I can't control. I understand that my institution is run by good leaders who, although fallible, receive instruction from those above them and execute the authority necessary to keep the institution running at it's best possible capacity, and I contribute my part.

 

If we all quit everything just because of the imperfections of all people and institutions within society, nobody would stick to anything.

 

Why would any of that be different for the church? :)

[MrShorty]

What I find interesting is that none of these things is completely wrong or unimportant in our quest for truth, but it is the "overemphasis" of any one of these that he identifies. It seems to me that each of these can be an important part of discerning truth from error. The real challenge I think is trying to understand how each of these fits into the process of discernment and apostasy.

 

I also note that he speaks mostly from an "in hindsight" perspective -- which is always easier to see things. The real challenge is being able to see, in the moment, when we are overemphasizing these.

[The Folk Prophet]

One of Satan's strongest tools has always been half-truths. This article put some of them (related to intellectualism) in terms of Trojan Horses. Church teachings usually explain these as "looking beyond the mark."

 

Some other Trojan Horses that are popular in today's climate:

 

Overemphasis on loving your neighbor

Overemphasis on tolerance

Overemphasis on equality

 

These are other true principles of the gospel that get overemphasized (I'm sure there are more) and are ultimately used to drive people away from the gospel. Just as with the other things he listed, these truths are twisted and mixed with false principles and conclusions to confuse and muddle plain truths.

 

 

I also note that he speaks mostly from an "in hindsight" perspective -- which is always easier to see things. The real challenge is being able to see, in the moment, when we are overemphasizing these.

 

Not really (from my point of view). Being smart has never been a gospel principle. Certainly being smart about some things at the exclusion of others is not. The gospel is laid out pretty clearly. It's not confusing if we actually listen to the teaching of our leaders. Each of these Trojan horse problems are based in self-serving ideas. It's putting what we want above what we're being taught.

 

Take for example personal revelation. The way we are to use personal revelation has been clearly laid out. The authority, directives, and order of God in guiding His church has been plainly defined. No one who ever stands up and says they have personal revelation that contradicts the church's teaching is in the right way. EVER. The only reason it's hard to see in the moment is because people choose to ignore what they don't like in the gospel teachings. They throw off plain direction with terms like "blind obedience" and "sheep" so they can ignore what they don't like.  Look at Ordain Women. They use the example of Emma and the Word of Wisdom to support their approach, completely ignoring the mountains of teachings contrary to what they are doing, and even ignoring that the Emma/WOW example is insufficient support, in that A. Joseph was already bothered himself by the smoking and messes, and B. Emma complained privately to her husband about cleaning. She did not agitate for change in gospel principles, raise the issue publicly, hold protests, demand change, or anything like unto it. And every time (EVERY time) someone came in claiming they knew the direction the church should go, what happened? They were censured, and if they did not acquiesce, they were excommunicated.

 

Staying true to the right way as defined in God's church is not difficult if we humble ourselves. It's when we let pride creep in that we begin to go astray.

[estradling75]

The only thing I didn't like about the article... Is that I inferred or got the feeling that the author thinks it is to late for him now.  I hope I am wrong in that impression because it is really not to late for him to return.

[The Folk Prophet]

The only thing I didn't like about the article... Is that I inferred or got the feeling that the author thinks it is to late for him now.  I hope I am wrong in that impression because it is really not to late for him to return.

 

Interesting. I didn't read it that way. I read it more like, "I've already blogged my anti-church stuff, already missed out on those years of blessings, already hurt family and friends, and that can never change...but I'm moving forward now".  Kind of like, hey, I cut my hand off, now I'm living the rest of my life without a hand. Or like the idea of having a tattoo...you can repent, go back, be better, etc...but the tattoo is there for life (pending, of course, expensive and painful removal....) Being stupid and making stupid choices has consequences, even if we repent. In the end it will be washed away and we'll be made clean, pure and perfect through the atonement. But in mortality you get stuck with the consequence of your actions.

 

I wonder if he meant it my way or yours.

[jerome1232]

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality becomes sameness, instead of equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

[estradling75]

 

I wonder if he meant it my way or yours.

 

That is a possibility...  We agree that there is a sense of loss running behind it... and I could be reading more into it then he intended. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I think another problem is often the meaning of these phrases are twisted into something else.

Tolerance becomes endorsement of all of their sins, and don't even dare call their sins what they are.

Love you neighbor becomes this odd condemnation for the church not putting every last penny into charity, or condemnation for investing in local economies instead of donating every last penny.

Equality because sameness, instead equality of value.  Especially our different roles as genders are seen as sexist.

 

Or Love your Neighbor becomes an excuse to hang out with people and situations where we should not be.

[classylady]

In reading the article this is what stood out to me:

"In their attempts to reconcile Mormonism (a culture which appeals strongly to social standing) with the culture of critical discourse (a culture which forbids any such appeal to social standing), intellectuals find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue priesthood authority in many ways. They will keep revelation but they will make it a democratized and personal kind of revelation. They will keep prophetic statements but only as a secondary source to the celestial dataset which we all have access to. They will keep the canonical scriptures but will insist that the books be interpreted in light of their own historical findings. They will keep their priesthood leaders as long as they are fallible, just like everybody else. All of these things serve to shift attention away from the social standing of who is speaking and toward the content of what is spoken in order to keep debates and arguments open rather than close them down. Additionally, just as intellectuals within the church find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue priesthood authority, they also find themselves compelled to systematically downplay or reconstrue their efforts at doing so. …"

 

And this: …  "priesthood leaders who were uniquely set apart from their peers by way of ordination."

 

What it boils down to, for me, is that our priesthood leaders have been set apart by ordination. It is not a democracy. Our ordained priesthood leaders may not be the most intellectual, educated, or learned men within our Mormon community. We should support and sustain our priesthood leaders, even if "we" might be more educated, or in our own eyes, more qualified. It's the Lord's church, and He will call whom He has chosen. 

 

I'm glad the author is making his way back to the church. In the comments that follow the article, the author states that he still has questions but is making progress.

[bytor2112]

Maybe I misread.....but a huge lack of humility seems to be the culprit.....

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe I misread.....but a huge lack of humility seems to be the cuprit.....

 

Or, another way to put it, pride --- *bum bum bum* -- Beware of Pride - from a Prophet's mouth. :)

 

Edit: What a great article by President Benson!

[heronephi]

I See pride as the biggest stumbling block for the intellectual. President Benson hit the nail on the head.  The Book of Mormon clearly point out what pride does to us...  My experience with the intellectual, they set themselves above us "little people" as if they and only they are able to see the truth.  That leaves me with the feeling that I can't survive without them.  They are the ones that created the Rameumpton tower in Alma.  The "little people" built it but they couldn't use it.

[mordorbund]

Perhaps this is why "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

[Blackmarch]

Just read this article and found it highly fascinating and quite insightful:

 

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-mormon-intellectuals-trojan-horses/

 

Not sure how much discussion it will generate, but, from my perspective at least, it's fairly spot on.

 

For those who don't wish to read through it, the Trojan horses it lists that intellectuals use to undermine the church are:

 

• Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.
• Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”.
• Overemphasizing the importance of church history.
• Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.

 

As I've seen a significant amount of just these issues, constantly repeated even here in this forum, I thought there might be some interesting discussion (or debate) to come of it.

Think any time you try to cram more logic and philosiphy beyond whats been revealed youve got a potential for a trojan

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

I See pride as the biggest stumbling block for the intellectual.

 

I agree, but would add that I think pride is the biggest stumbling block for ALL of us.  If you doubt this, just pray and ask the Lord if you are too prideful.  Beware that you might not like the answer.

 

Since the Lord pointed it out to me, I see it in myself frequently.  It takes constant vigilance and effort to keep it in check.

[heronephi]

amen to that!

[heronephi]

My granddaughter wonders why we can't say awomen instead of amen? HaHaHa

[Traveler]

I am not impressed when someone attempts to argue that intellectualism is flawed and then uses intellectualism to prove their point.  I find Christ's use of intellectualism in discussing principles with the Pharisees rather interesting.  Christ also resorts to intellectualism in dealing with Satan in Luke chapter 4.  Note that when Christ talks with the Pharisees and Satan the problem is not so much overemphasizing a specific principle as it is ignoring a more important principle. 

 

I learned in mathematics that ignoring a principle is what causes incorrect conclusions – not overemphasizing any particular principle.   This may seem like a subtle difference and I am not going to argue the point just to make a point.  However, Jesus talked about being whole – which means not leaving anything out.  If to you, overemphasizing means leaving something else completely out, then we agree but are using different terminology.  Again anciently being perfect meant being complete and whole – leaving nothing out.

 

As a scientist – the reason I see and believe in peer review is to determine if something was left out of consideration.  I agree in part that many self-proclaimed intellectuals argue to validate their conclusion rather than their process – something I personal think is pseudo intellectualism not actual intellectualism.  I believe more in process than conclusion.  Often I ask both LDS and others of different religious persuasions – by what process they came to their conclusion.  This helps me determine if I have left anything out myself.

 

One last thought – the scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and alter one’s behavior.  Jesus said we should be like little children – willing to learn.  Thus I believe true intelligence or intellectualism is the ability to learn.  The scriptures warn against ever learning but never understanding the truth.  Again I see this as incomplete learning – deliberately leaving something necessary out of consideration.

[The Folk Prophet]

I am not impressed when someone attempts to argue that intellectualism is flawed and then uses intellectualism to prove their point.

 

Is that what happened? I'm not so sure. You're equating intelligence and the use of logic with "intellectualism", which could be seen as the same thing, but it is not, from my reading, what the author was talking about. Moreover, and more to the point, the argument was not that intellectualism as a whole was flawed. It was pointing out problems in the way many intellectualists approach the gospel. If one points out flaws in they way one uses words does it mean language is flawed?

 

 

One last thought – the scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and alter one’s behavior.  Jesus said we should be like little children – willing to learn.  Thus I believe true intelligence or intellectualism is the ability to learn.  The scriptures warn against ever learning but never understanding the truth.  Again I see this as incomplete learning – deliberately leaving something necessary out of consideration.

 

See...intelligence and intellectualism is not being used to mean the same thing by the author...so you defining them as equivalent is decidedly unfair as a rebuttal.

 

That being said, I do agree with the idea you're presenting of focus on some things to the exclusion of others being the problem. I do not see it (nor do I feel the article presents it) as the entire problem. There are also half-truths taken out of context in these "overemphasized" things. And, there is, undoubtedly, a reality to being able to overemphasize things -- moderation and wisdom being components of the whole truth of the gospel. So you're point is valid, but it does not completely capture the problem, imo.

[Traveler]

Is that what happened? I'm not so sure. You're equating intelligence and the use of logic with "intellectualism", which could be seen as the same thing, but it is not, from my reading, what the author was talking about. Moreover, and more to the point, the argument was not that intellectualism as a whole was flawed. It was pointing out problems in the way many intellectualists approach the gospel. If one points out flaws in they way one uses words does it mean language is flawed?

 

 

 

See...intelligence and intellectualism is not being used to mean the same thing by the author...so you defining them as equivalent is decidedly unfair as a rebuttal.

 

That being said, I do agree with the idea you're presenting of focus on some things to the exclusion of others being the problem. I do not see it (nor do I feel the article presents it) as the entire problem. There are also half-truths taken out of context in these "overemphasized" things. And, there is, undoubtedly, a reality to being able to overemphasize things -- moderation and wisdom being components of the whole truth of the gospel. So you're point is valid, but it does not completely capture the problem, imo.

My point is that intellectualism is not nor has it ever been a problem - the problem is pseudo intellectualism.  Perhaps I am too black and white because I do not believe in half truths.  I believe in truth and I see no difference between an outright lie and what some call half-truths.

 

I used mathematics as an example for the following reasons.  I believe mathematics to be a language – a language given to humans that in every way that I understand – is the language closest to divine principles of logic.  For example – if one follows the syntax and grammar it is impossible to lie with mathematics.  In order to lie with mathematics one has to leave out a step or process of syntax or grammar.  Most people think the answer to a mathematical problem is the great achievement of an end – but that just is not true.  It is the process to obtain an answer that is the overriding principle that makes mathematics the most perfect of all human logic.

[prisonchaplain]

From the POV of evangelicals, #1 might primarily relate to the Moroni Prayer.  Am I to pray about before I read the BOM?  Should I first examine it and see if I think it probably is true, and then pray for confirmation?  Or, should I just pray the prayer and await an impression?  The latter approach might lead many of us to skepticism.  However, I'd say that the LDS.net regular have seemed to steer me towards becoming more-convinced-than-not before "praying the prayer."  That strikes me as a balanced reliance on the Holy Spirit.

 

2.  "Thus saieth the Lord" is an approach that can be abused in any Christian tradition that believes the Spirit speaks to us today (primarily LDS and Pentecostals/Charismatics).

 

3.  Church history, like all history, is immensely valuable.  Critics tend to fear that too much history study leads to undue pride in the organiation (or nation).  This is an accusation that I find anti-intellectual.

 

4.  Again, Pentecostals and Charismatics face the same dilemma.  The anti-Pentecostal brings up a prophecy by someone that did not pan out (according to their interpretation), and then says the whole movement is bogus.  If they feel really impassioned they'll quote a verse about stoning the false prophet.  My first response is to take a slow-paced time of reflection as to whether the acuser is a mocker and enemy, or a well-meaning Christian who believes I am in error, but is willing to dialogue.

For those who don't wish to read through it, the Trojan horses it lists that intellectuals use to undermine the church are:

 

1. Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation.
2. Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”.
3. Overemphasizing the importance of church history.
4. Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets.

 

[Traveler]

From the POV of evangelicals, #1 might primarily relate to the Moroni Prayer.  Am I to pray about before I read the BOM?  Should I first examine it and see if I think it probably is true, and then pray for confirmation?  Or, should I just pray the prayer and await an impression?  The latter approach might lead many of us to skepticism.  However, I'd say that the LDS.net regular have seemed to steer me towards becoming more-convinced-than-not before "praying the prayer."  That strikes me as a balanced reliance on the Holy Spirit.

 

2.  "Thus saieth the Lord" is an approach that can be abused in any Christian tradition that believes the Spirit speaks to us today (primarily LDS and Pentecostals/Charismatics).

 

3.  Church history, like all history, is immensely valuable.  Critics tend to fear that too much history study leads to undue pride in the organiation (or nation).  This is an accusation that I find anti-intellectual.

 

4.  Again, Pentecostals and Charismatics face the same dilemma.  The anti-Pentecostal brings up a prophecy by someone that did not pan out (according to their interpretation), and then says the whole movement is bogus.  If they feel really impassioned they'll quote a verse about stoning the false prophet.  My first response is to take a slow-paced time of reflection as to whether the acuser is a mocker and enemy, or a well-meaning Christian who believes I am in error, but is willing to dialogue.

 

Just a note about prayer and studying the Book of Mormon, Science or for that matter anything else.

I like to begin any study with a prayer and discuss with G-d my intension, purpose and intended or expected results.  But I add a caveat that I be guided by the spirit to discover new things and led to better understanding.  At the end of my endeavor I pray again reporting what I learned and achieved so far and ask G-d to accept my efforts and if necessary bring to my attention what I missed or what he would have me understand.  I also promise G-d to go where ever he would have me go and do what he would have me do.  If I am to change direction – he needs to make clear to me what new direction he would have me go.

 

I believe that I have learned many truths from those of other religions but I have received confirmation that just as there is only one true and living G-d – that there is only one true and living church.  Concerning studies in Science – I have received confirmation that there is much truth in science and that when we understand religion and science we will realize that there is no conflict in thruth.

[The Folk Prophet]

My point is that intellectualism is not nor has it ever been a problem - the problem is pseudo intellectualism.

 

I would contend (I think we have a theme running in separate threads) that all mortal intellectualism is pseudo intellectualism. Which is exactly why it is a problem.

[Matthew.Bennett]

Whenever someone tries to give me advice about how to view my religion and uses the language of sociology and philosophy instead of the scriptures, my red flags start to go up.

 

The philosophies of man are many and variegated, and the only way to successfully navigate through them is by using the gift of personal revelation.

 

Hopefully, that statement doesn't count as overemphasizing personal revelation.