Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Who are the Current Church Leader Intellectuals?
By: Jeff SpectorThroughout the history of the Church, there have been General Authorities who have stood out as the intellectuals or keepers of the Doctrines of the Church. I am wondering who those leaders are today? I have my ideas and I am anxious to hear yours. This is not meant as an exhaustive list, but some of the most famous ones.
Joseph Smith, Jr. – (1805 – 1844) Brother Joseph, as the Restorer of the Gospel to the earth, was certainly the modern Church’s first intellectual. He, in his short time, gave the Church the majority of its doctrines still upheld today.
Orson Pratt – (1811- 1881) One of the original twelve Apostles and its last surviving member, he wrote some fifteen pamphlets and booklets including “The Kingdom of God,” and “New Jerusalem, or the Spirit of Modern Prophecy,” and published and circulated several hundred thousand of them in different languages. At the same time, he edited the Millennial Star, and increased its circulation from less than four thousand to nearly twenty-three thousand. While serving a mission to Washington D.C., he wrote and published “The Seer, in which he was stanchly defended of Polygamy and expounded upon it, finding himself at odds with Brigham Young regarding some of his more esoteric writings on the subject. He also transcribed and published the Book of Mormon in both the Deseret alphabet and Pitman phonetic characters. And finally, he served as Church Historian and Recorder from 1874 until his death in 1881.
Joseph Fielding Smith – (1878 – 1972) Son of President Joseph F. Smith, who became Church President himself. He began his post-mission career in the Church Historian’s office where he developed his writing and research skills. He began by writing pamphlets such as “Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage” and “Origin of the Reorganized Church and the Question of Succession.” These were apologetic materials written to defend the Church. He then went on to write 22 books mostly on doctrinal subjects, such as “Doctrines of Salvation” (3 vols), “Essentials in Church History,” “Teachings of the “Prophet Joseph Smith,” a compilation of articles from the Improvement Era entitled “Answers to Gospel Questions” (5 vol), and “Man: His Origins and Destiny among others.” The latter book was quite controversial. In spite of the Church taking no position on evolution, President Smith took a hard position against evolution and it created tensions between various members of the Twelve with scientific backgrounds, namely Talmage and Widsoe and also B.H. Roberts, a Seventy.. He was considered a hard liner when it came to doctrinal interpretation and had a significant influence on his Son-in-Law, Bruce R. McConkie.
James E. Talmage – (1862 – 1933) A member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he is best known for his works, “Jesus The Christ,” Articles of Faith,” The Great Apostasy,” and “House of the Lord.” Elder Talmage wrote “Jesus The Christ” on commission from the First Presidency over a three year period in the Salt Lake Temple. It became one of the classic works in Mormon literature, being used as a study manual for Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society. Elder Talmage did, however, rely very heavily on Alfred Edersheim’s “The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,” among other works in writing “Jesus the Christ.”
BH Roberts – (1857 – 1933) Brigham Henry Roberts was a member of the First Council of Seventy. He has a colorful life to say the least. However, while serving a mission to England, he served as an Assistant editor for the Millennial Star and completed his first book, the much reprinted, “The Gospel: An Exposition of Its First Principles” (1888). Upon his return to Utah, he was ordained to the First Council of Seventy. He also became full time editor of The Contributor, a Church magazine. In response to an Inquier, Roberts wrote three studies questioning the issues in the Book of Mormon, namely “A Book of Study.” This work explored all the difficulties Roberts found within the Book of Mormon itself. This book was not published until 1985. While many claimed that Roberts, a loyal Church leader was playing the other side of the issue and expounding on it, this put him at odds with some General Authorities. However, he continued to function as a Church leader to his death. To Leonard J. Arrington, Roberts was “the intellectual leader of the Mormon people in the era of Mormonism’s finest intellectual attainment.” (Leonard J. Arrington, “The Intellectual Tradition of the Latter-day Saints,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 (Spring 1969), 22.)
John A. Widsoe – (1872 – 1952) A member of the Quorum of the Twelve, he obtained a Ph.D from University of Göttingen, Germany while serving a mission there. He was a professor of Agriculture at BYU. Elder Widsoe wrote a number of books, including “Teachings of Brigham Young,”” Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Writings of Joseph F. Smith,” “A Rational Theology as Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Evidences and Reconciliations”, a compilation of his columns in the Improvement Era and “Priesthood and Church Welfare” and “Priesthood and Church Government.” The latter two were somewhat quasi-Church Handbooks for their time. He also penned two books about Joseph Smith , “Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth Prophet of God” and “Joseph Smith as a Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy.” Overall, Elder Widsoe held the belief that multiple interpretations of Latter-day Saint doctrine and issues could be held by faithful members.
Bruce R. McConkie (1915-1985) – A member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Son-In-law of President Joseph Fielding Smith and certainly the most well-known of the modern Church Leader intellectuals and keepers of the doctrine. McConkie published several doctrinal books and articles and wrote the chapter headings of the LDS Church’s most recent editions of the Standard Works. He was a member of the First Council of Seventy when he penned his now-infamous book, “Mormon Doctrine: A Compendium of the Gospel. “ He described as “the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom” and “the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.” He included a disclaimer that he alone was responsible for the doctrinal and scriptural interpretations, a practice unusual at the time. (Horne, Dennis B. “Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings” (2000). Eborn Books).
However, the book had a number of problems and errors. Elder McConkie was asked not to reprint the book by President David O. MacKay. However, later, with the help of Elder Spencer W. Kimball, a 2nd edition of the book was published and it became a standard reference for many Church members and in Church publications and manuals in spite of the fact that it was not an “official Church publication.”
Elder McConkie was well-known in the Church as speaking with an authoritative tone, even occasionally chastising those who questioned him. He also wrote “Doctrinal New Testament Commentaries” and “The Messiah” series, which relied heavily on his past writings. He also heavily used Alfred Edersheim’s works as reference.
In the recent past, his works have seen less use in the Church.
So, who are today’s version of the Church leaders. Certain, Elder Holland is one who speaks frequently on important Gospel Doctrinal issues as do many of the General Authorities. What you do not see are the books like those in the past.
So, who do you think are the current Church Leader Intellectuals?
Two quick comments:
1. As the bureaucratic and ecclesiastical duties FP and 12 have increased I believe there is both less time for these men to produce even pseudo-scholarly work. With that, I believe there is a strong disincentive among the brethren now to produce such books. They are well aware, I think, of how such previous treatments have aged and do not want to create the same problems that books like ‘Man: His origin and destiny’ have created.
2. Where are the women?
The closest I can think of an attempt at a somewhat scholarly work from an Apostle is Holland’s ‘Christ and new Covenant’. It draws on academic work and at least has footnotes to non-devotional sources. It also tries to present a Christology, of sorts.
Like this comment?
2
Jeff – great to “see” you.
This is an interesting post and I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit recently. I’ve thought a lot about the concept of current Church intellectuals, and think there is some difficulty in defining one today. I think it is a completely different climate today. Several reasons:
1) Expansion vs retrenchment: In the early days of the Church, the gospel and thoughts expanded. Joseph Smith presented profound concepts to the world, very different from much that existed at his time. Other early Church leaders continued these thought experiments. They took what had been revealed and asked, “What if…”. They incorporated current scientific, philosophical, political, and social thinking. They predicted bold things. Sometimes they were wrong, as in any intellectual endeavor, but there is a certain vigor that exists in the marketplace of ideas.
This is lacking now. The church has been in an environment of retrenchment for decades. There aren’t really any new concepts. Conference talks quote previous conference talks. Current leaders seem reluctant to make many bold new statements that might possibly be wrong.
2) Defining doctrine: This is related to point #1. In the early days of the Church, the leaders were more free to expound on their personal views because anything that was truly doctrinal or revealed was added to our canon of scripture. This is in contrast to the current environment where we are told that anything that a leader says in conference or that is published in a magazine or wherever should be considered doctrine. This makes them extremely reluctant to actually go out on a limb and offer their personal opinions.
3)Makeup of leadership: In the early days of the Church, we had scientists and theologians and other others in the hierarchy. Today, the leadership is primarily lawyers and businessmen. They are therefore naturally more interested in making the corporation of the Church more efficient, tracking home teaching numbers and other statistics, as opposed to exploring “intellectual” issues.
4) Leadership conformity: In the early Church, leadership frequently and openly disagreed. It fostered the idea that intellectual exploration of contrasting ideas was healthy and possible. It was the concept that it was ok to disagree with another Church leader’s opinion without being “unfaithful”.
Today, conformity is much more important than exploring new concepts. You would never hear apostles discuss things like they used to. Again, this is a natural outgrowth of the increasing corporate nature of the Church and perhaps represents its current stage of growth as it matures. And McConkie et al had a great role in this. He basically said that if you disagreed with him then you were in danger of apostasy. And it’s been that way ever since.
Overall, this has led to #5:
5) Anti-intellectual environment: We currently operate in an anti-intellectual environment. We hear talks about “so-called intellectuals”. We hear about being “swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid”. We are told that “intellectual pride is very prevalent in our day”. We hear about distinguishing between questions “that are truly essential to our eternal progress and those that result from intellectual curiosity”.
Being perceived as an “intellectual” is akin to being in apostasy.
So, I think the era of the Church “intellectual” is largely over for now. In order to fill this role, you need to be BOTH an intellectual (with what that implies) AND high enough in the Church hierarchy for your opinion and thoughts to carry any weight. It doesn’t matter what I think, as I just have a “ward calling”. It doesn’t matter what you think, as you’re probably in a similar role. It only matters if your are in a high enough position. And you only get to those positions if, over the decades-long path it takes to progress through the hierarchy, you have suppressed any “intellectual” or questioning tendencies.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
30
I agree with Aaron. I don’t think we have anyone in the class of McConkie in the current ranks. Holland and Oaks aren’t even in the same category, though they are probably closest.
Like this comment?
0
I’m intrigued that you list Elder McConkie — I see why you do, but I would never have thought of him in the same way as the others on your list. He seemed to me often to reinforce and repeat the teachings of his father-in-law (though in his highly declarative style!).
Elder Oaks does a similar thing for me, though he’s not taken on the task of writing the same compendium that Elder McConkie did.
I think Mike S hits it on the head — we are in an era of retrenchment when the intellectual approach seems to be out of favor, and the cues he cites are great evidence of that.
Even talks which seem to include “research” often repeat the traditional view of our past (think milk strippings and misspelling of names) and confirm doctrine that seemed to be most taught by JFS (think NDBF).
That said, as keepers of the doctrine — it seems Elder Bednar is moving in that direction.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
It was very ear-perking (and unusual) during conference to hear Elder Holland use the words “nonscriptural liberty”
Like this comment?
1
When a former law professor and state supreme court justice begins travelling around the nation, giving speeches which clearly contradict the Constitutional Law principles which he once would have taught to his law students, he can no longer be considered an “intellectual.” He becomes nothing more than a lobbyist and whore of his “prophet.”
Like this comment?
3
Mike S.,
Excellent comment that I completely agree with. I do thing that we have those Church leaders who could be inclined that way, but do not. I probably should have included Elder Maxwell in my list.
Paul,
I do agree with you about Elder McConkie, however, as you know he was the perceived Doctrinaire of our generation.
I also do see a bit of that in Elder Bednar, but, frankly, he is a bit smug for me. The earring story really changed my opinion of him.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Aaron,
Indeed, where are the women? Theren’t aren’t many Eliza R. Snows on the horizon in church Leadership.
Like this comment?
1
Nick, should be interesting to see what the US Supreme court does with the issues. However, I thInk you are merely defaming Oaks rather than addressing his scholarly works.
He has, in the past, been cited for authority by the US Supreme Court. Not many can make such a claim.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Nick:
is this about gay marriage again?
There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage anymore than there is to wed a parent, a pet, or a child. There is no constitutional/civil right to this.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Stephen, you’re an attorney, as I recall. How far would you have gotten in your basic Constitutional Law class, if you’d written a final exam answer on the basis that because the anti-establishment clause appeared first in the Bill of Rights, “religious freedom” trumped all other rights enumerated therein? That’s what he’s seriously been telling groups in his speeches recently!
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Thank you, Henry, for your opinion, which I’m sure is based on extensive study of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and Supreme Court decisions on the subject of marriage (cough).
Like this comment?
3
Nick, I normally appreciate your comments. But when you call an apostle a “whore of his prophet” I am no longer interested in what you have to say. Regardless of how you feel, it is extremely disrespectful towards him or any other religious leader of any faith.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
17
hey everyone, this post isn’t about gay marriage. So, please, let’s discuss this topic without consideration for anyone’s view on the acceptability or inacceptability of gay marriage.
Or else.
Like this comment?
3
Thank You, Andrew.
Like this comment?
2
Mike, you’re welcome to be interested in what I have to say, or not. Oaks spent decades teaching law, and then administering it as a justice of his state’s hightest court. Aside from the unlikely possibility of severe dementia, there is simply no possibility that he believes his argument about the primacy of what he calls “religious freedom” over all other legal rights. He employs that argument, however, in order to carry out his assignments from the president of his church, whom he publicly declares a “prophet.” When a man so readily teaches blatant falsehoods at the direction of an authority figure, he sells his own precious integrity for a very cheap price. I have no hesitation in calling such a man a “whore,” nor do I see any reason to be “respectful” of such a pathetic character.
Andrew, I’ll point out that I didn’t bring up marriage equality (what you mistakenly call “gay marriage”) at all—Henry did that. I have only discussed the fraudulent claim that “religious freedom” is privileged by all other civil rights, as a function of where the disestablishment clause is located in the Bill of Rights.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
Ah, when Nick starts spreading his tolerance, the civility in a post ceases. It’s always nice to be around liberals who illustrate their tolerance with charity…
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Why on earth would we urge “tolerance” of teaching blatant falsehoods? Would you decry “intolerance” of bank robbery?
Like this comment?
0
Because otherwise, you’re a hypocrite Nick. Why should you expect faithful Mormons to allow tolerance of teaching the blatant falsehood that homosexuality doesn’t damn an individual? Would you decrey the “intolerance” of sexual abuse perpetrated by gay men on little boys?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Evidently, I’ve offended several people for using the word, “whore.” If anyone is personally offended that I do not pay what they consider due deference to an official of their church, I apologize. Feel free to substitute “person who readily sells their own integrity in order to gain the favor of another person with superior power or authority.”
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
h_nu, why are you bringing up homosexuality? This isn’t a post about homosexuality, nor about marriage equality. This is a post about “church leader intellectuals.” I commented that a particular leader has been giving speeches which fully contradict the long-established truths of his impressive profession, in order to serve an agenda assigned by his leader, and I indicated that such dishonesty is not what I believe can be considered “intellectual.”
Like this comment?
3
OK, I’m going to state things in a different way.
Everyone, read the post. Really, read it.
In it, Jeff has presented several candidates of people who could fit as “Mormon intellectuals” who are also church leaders. Read the candidates, and pay attention to what they are described as doing to earn this role.
This establishes the context for what we are looking for when discussing “Church leader intellectual.”
Nick,
Oaks’ employment, argumentation, or understanding of constitutional law may say much about whether he is an intellectual with respect to constitutional law (or other secular dimensions), but what does it say about whether he is an intellectual with respect to the Mormon domains that Jeff has discussed?
If you don’t think that there are Mormon church leader intellectuals in the sense that Jeff has discussed in the original post, then it’s fine for you (or anyone) to make that case and why (after all, Mike S, Aaron R, etc., have made those sorts of comments), but I mean, this topic isn’t about making your pronunciations (which everyone already knows anyway) about integrity, secular professionalism, etc.
If you don’t have anything to say about church leaders being intellectuals in a Mormon sense, then it’s OK if you sit this one out. Oaks will probably say or do something that *will* generate a post on whether or not his presentation of constitutional law is appropriate, and then that will be the place to discuss.
h_nu, Henry,
If you see a Nick Literski comment, you don’t have to immediately make a response about gay marriage or homosexuality. Really, you don’t.
…
As for my response on topic, I agree with Samuel Rogers…I haven’t re-read/watched Holland’s comments, but I was intrigued when I heard that.
Like this comment?
0
Oh yeah, and I also think that the mechanics of the modern leadership of the church (and where it is at in its lifecycle) mean that we simply aren’t going to see similar kinds of intellectuals to what we saw in the past.
Instead, we probably need to broad our scope. Like, in the same way that we can recognize artistic geniuses as well as math geniuses, we probably need to acknowledge that in addition to theological intellectuals, we can have things like logistical intellectuals. I know that a lot of people don’t really “get” this, and I haven’t been doing the best job of trying to explain it, but I really do think that correlation, underneath the surface, has a lot of complexity.
Like this comment?
2
When it comes to “doctrinal” LDS leader/intellectuals, I think McConkie was the most recent. Say what you will about whether he had everything “right,” he certainly was willing to do the hard work of diving into what was given and explicating the details implied. Further, he had the integrity to say (paraphrasing) “Forget what I said–I was wrong.”
These days, the combination of Correlation, public relations, and a culture tending toward infallibility seems to silence any doctrinal leader/intellectuals. They’re effectively censored by those factors, to the point they really don’t dare take risks. If they have anything individually insightful to share, it’s going to be around the very basic teachings and “moral behavior” of LDS thought. At least in my mind, being an “intellectual” means being willing and able to go out on a limb–even dare to be completely wrong.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
I actually skipped the first half of con law (but I did pretty much max the topic both times I took the multistate exam) …
Andrew, what you have said about logistics made sense to me.
Nick, Oaks is the kind of guy who only sleeps 6.5 hours a night to work more. His primary virtue is the ability and willingness to work.
He also made the decision not to be a lawyer who is also … but rather someone who used to be a lawyer. But it does mean he is not focused on an intellectual approach.
I do not think we have general authorities now who have the time and drive and institutional space to focus on what we would call an intellectual approach — and I think it opens up freedom.
Especially as I believe in a quantum state reality I think it is a good thing not to have all the mental space taken up.
Like this comment?
3
Well, I am doing my best to focus on the OP. In terms of cerebral candlepower and depth of study, we do not appear to have many folks in the Widstoe/McConkie/Joseph Merrill (we don’t seem to have mentioned him) stratum. The members of the current crowd do seem to know their way around a balance sheet, though.
Like this comment?
1
I attended an interesting Q&A with Terryl Givens today. Maybe we should look outside church leadership for the best intellectuals. Givens is right up there. Perhaps Steven Robinson could be in that group. John Sorenson, and Daniel Peterson (while I’m sure not popular choices for some) might be some others.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Not an intelectual perhaps but it seems to me that since Uchtdorf has been in the first presidency there has been a shift of direction from Follow the Prophet to follow the teachings of Christ.
I’m not sure, with the conditions described by Mike S, that much more than this can be expected.
Perhaps this is why, when we look back on conference, we remember Elder Oaks because he got a bit carried away, Elder Uchtdorf because of his christ like talk, and not much else of note.
Like this comment?
1
Elder Oaks was offered in the thread as a possible current Church Leader Intellectual. So I think if we set aside the word “whore” and the topic of homosexuality, Nick makes a very interesting point regarding Elder Oaks and his inconsistent positions. Is one a legal view and the other an Apostolic view? Has Elder Oaks lost sight of truth in favor of being just another hired gun for the current client? In any case Elder Oaks has puzzled me for some time; while his delivery sounds very impressive and authoritative I am very put off by the sophistry used in spinning his arguments. How can this be reconciled with thinking of him as an intellectual? Isn’t he just acting like a high powered attorney?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
Upon seeing Joseph Fielding Smith’s name on the list, I thought of his writings wherein he wrote:
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race” (The Way to Perfection, p.101).
“The Latter-day Saints have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an `inferior race’” (Answers to Gospel Questions 4:170).
When you add his teachings on age of man, age of the earth, etc. he is not on my list.
I suppose it depends on your definition of an intellectual. To me, when someone stubbornly teachings blatantly wrong things simply because they are “revealed truths”, as he taught when discussing evolution, Adam and Eve, etc. he is not an intellectual.
Oaks does the same thing, recently advancing his rock-in-the-glove anti-gay rhetoric in this last conference talking about how we can assume that gay parents will have a devastating affect on their children.
Like this comment?
2
As for lawyers in general, it is their job often to take unpopular positions. Many disagree with Johnny Cochran, John Edwards (D), and Lindsay Graham (R). Yet these men shouldn’t be denigrated simply because one disagrees with an unpopular position they hold. Ok, I withdraw Oaks from the conversation as he is such a lightning rod. (I did think he gave a cool talk on priesthood blessings about a year ago that I thought was outstanding.)
But once again, in the Givens Q&A yesterday, he said there is nothing wrong with lay members in our church becoming theologians. We are a lay ministry after all. Why should the leaders be the only ones when we can each choose to do that ourselves?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Thanks to those who did comment on the topic. It would seem that business acumen has taken the place of Doctrine exposition as a qualification for Church leadership. I did think there are a lot of smart guys at the top of the Church, who also possess keen intellect. things do, as we have discussed manifest itself in a very different way than the past.
I’d love to have a discussion on the intellectuals who sit outside the church Leadership ranks.
To me, there are those who ARE truly intellectual and those who are self-proclaimed due to some hidden truth about the Church or gospel they have uncovered which, in most cases, sets them outside the mainstream.
And, to me, having advanced degrees DOES not automatically qualify one as an intellectual.
Perhaps that can be the subject of a post in the near future.
Like this comment?
0
I don’t see how Joseph Smith could be considered an intellectual — he didn’t provide any footnotes.
Anyway, I really don’t want intellectuals — I want for some men to serve as the Lord’s priests among us. The Holy Ghost and the process of study and councils and maybe some prophetic insight from time to time can teach me whatever I need to know. Whatever I do learn, I would rather it come from these processes than from intellectual philosophizing. I want the Holy Ghost to show me how I am made in God’s image, rather than re-making God in my image.
I agree with Elder Widsoe that multiple interpretations of doctrine and issues can be held by faithful members, but I don’t believe it just because he said it.
Like this comment?
1
MH : We are a lay ministry after all. Why should the leaders be the only ones when we can each choose to do that ourselves?
I do think that there are and can be Mormon intellectuals in the non-hierarchy. However, on a practical level it won’t punt to much. There will always be thoughts and ideas that conflict with the status quo. Without the “title” these ideas will be ignored at best, or may cause the person to be considered in apostasy at worst. The only “intellectual ideas” that can be officially accepted in the current environment are those that support what is already there. Anything else is ” not helpful” and will be suppressed.
Like this comment?
1
Mike, of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but Givens made it very clear that the title of theologian is open to all. (It deserves a post–not sure if I will get it done by Monday, but perhaps.) He definitely encouraged us to quit being quiet in church. His book “The God Who Weeps”, says that God is God because he has an infinite capacity to be vulnerable. Yes, our speaking up in church makes us vulnerable to attacks (just as Jesus was attacked by Pharisees), but Jesus still made a huge impact despite being so vulnerable.
JI, you might be interested in Harold Bloom’s position that Joseph Smith was absolutely an intellectual, despite his lack of degree. See http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/09/05/bloom-calls-smith-%E2%80%9Cmost-eminent-intellectual-in-mormon-history%E2%80%9D/
Like this comment?
1
MH (no. 35) Sure, he was brilliant. But one cannot put him under the same category as OP, JFS, JET, BHR, JAW, and BRM, as in the original posting. Joseph Smith was the great prophet of this dispensation, and he taught truths from God. All the other fellows are good men who explained and exhorted and defended and argued and rationalized and philosophized and justified and administered and so forth as men do in academic or bureaucratic settings. To put them in a list as if they’re all the same unfairly diminishes Joseph Smith and unfairly elevates the others. To me, there is no real comparison between direct revelation and man-made explanations.
Note: The man-made explanations can be well-intentioned and can even be correct. I’m not disparaging the idea of one Latter-day Saint teaching another.
Like this comment?
2
Whatever one may say about Joseph Smith’s truthfulness or integrity, he was a positively brilliant mythmaker. That alone classifies him as an “intellectual.” On top of that, you can add a sustained, repeated effort throughout his life, in obtaining further education for himself and those around him (i.e. Hebrew School, Kirtland School, etc.).
Like this comment?
1
First Oaks now Joseph.
What bridge do you live under, Nick?
Like this comment?
0
kramer,
Either contribute constructively or sit this conversation out, please.
Like this comment?
3
Well said Andrew.
Like this comment?
0
Jeff (#8), I believe there are women in the leadership who are probably able of being that kind of voice. The reason we are not aware of them, I suspect, is not because they are not capable.
Like this comment?
0
Always LOVED Elders F. Enzio Busche, Gene R. Cook, Vaughn J. Featherstone and Merrill J. Bateman. As for current brethren I think Pres. Uchtdorf always has great things to say about Christian living.
Like this comment?
0
Since Neal Maxwell passed away, I wouldn’t say there are any real intellectuals right now. David Bednar is sort of along those lines, but not even close to what Maxwell was.
Like this comment?
3
Can anyone explain exactly what I said about Joseph Smith that so incensed the person hiding behind the “kramer” pseudonym? It just goes to show, some people are absolutely determined to turn ANYTHING into a personal insult.
Like this comment?
0
Nick, don’t bait the insult.
Like this comment?
0
Nick, I don’t see anything wrong with what you said about Joseph. Perhaps someone thought “mythmaker” meant Zeus, but I know you didn’t intend mythmaker in that sense. I remember sitting in an MHA meeting discussion about the “myth” of the seagulls and crickets. A woman was quite incensed at the term, stating clearly that the event happened. The authors agreed, but noted the woman didn’t understand that the word myth had a different meaning than she understood.
JI, I don’t know how familiar you are with Harold Bloom (he is not a Mormon, but rather a Jew.) In the 1969 survey of Mormon intellectuals (by Mormons), Joseph Smith ranked #3. When the survey was repeated in 1993, Smith fell to #5. Bloom’s response was
I think Bloom properly elevates Smith about the plateau of Pratt, McConkie, McMurrin, and others.
I agree with the statement that Neal A. Maxwell is probably our most recent intellectual apostle. His sermons are greatly missed.
Like this comment?
1
MH (no. 46) — Regarding Joseph Smith, your quotation says, “He was an authentic visionary, and totally original in mind and spirit—really a kind of mortal god.” To the degree that I agree with this, and I do to a degree, I still have to stop short of painting all those other fellows with this same brush. I suppose I’m trying to say that Joseph Smith stands apart (far apart) from those other fellows, and it diminishes his greatness to say he is an church intellectual along with all these other fellows. I think calling Joseph Smith an intellectual diminishes him. The others are intellectuals in my eyes, because they were working their own brains to explain and dogmatize and teach and rationalize and so forth — but only Joseph Smith brought something new.
Yes, Joseph Smith was a religious genius (if we give him credit for what he did). The other follows in the list? Good men and good thinkers, but religious geniuses? No. It is one thing to create from new or to reveal from the heavens, and quite another (less impressive) to participate in the discussion afterwards.
Like this comment?
3
ji, if someone is a religious genius, how can they not be considered an intellectual? To do so is to use a narrow definition of intellectual that only pays homage to public education. I think we all understand that Joseph is outside the box, but I think it is not only a mistake to exclude him from a list of intellectuals, but how can he not rank at the top of the list?
Like this comment?
0
MH (no. 48) — We might be talking past each other, and not really disagreeing — sure, let’s say Joseph Smith is outside the box and all the others are inside the box. i can live with that.
I suppose my real point is that all the other fellows produced words and thoughts from their own effort and study, but Joseph Smith revealed original words and thoughts and ideas direct from the courts of heaven. To me, there is a real difference. If I am in a situation where I must see Joseph Smith as merely a man acting on his own with his own ideas, then yes, he is an intellectual far and away at the top of the list of Mormon intellectuals — indeed, he is in a class by himself because all the other fellows are just analyzing and re-analyzing his work. But you know, maybe Joseph Smith was an ordinary man doing an extraordinary work. Maybe he wasn’t an intellectual at all but was merely a humble man doing the work of the Lord, who Himself said that he chooses the weak to do great things. If Joseph Smith was here among us today, absent his revelations but just the man, all those we call intellectuals might not have any time for him.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Mh:
The title of theologian may be open to all, but in practice the vast majority of members I know restrict theologian status to the church hierarchy…and do so with no shortage of zeal.
Though there may be pockets where the outside the manual teachers can flourish and bloom, but I think it’s definitely not the norm. My experience is – and I know Jeff largely disagrees – that far too many members police other members who look for resources outside of the Ensign or officially recognized manuals.
If only people were more open, then the anti-intellectual movement might go away. Problem is, Nibley complained of the same thing 30+ years ago and the problem not only still exists, but has probably Gotten a little worse (IMO).
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
I’ve watched with interest the bookwriting career of James Ferrell, who has entered the LDS non-fiction publishing world as a non-general authority. His book, The Hidden Christ, ascribes symbolism in Old Testament writings in some ways that seem original to his own intellectual expansion, which would seem to put him in the category of an intellectual. He has yet to have the longevity or body of work that would enshrine him in this category, but given what others have said about the changing dynamics involved in intellectual authorship, it just may be impossible to become enshrined in the category of intellectual anymore. His church calling, as I recall, was as a member of a stake presidency. It was humorous to read one reader review on amazon who basically said, who are you to be coming up with these writings and presenting them as if they were in the same category of acceptability as writings of a GA. Yet, doing so in spite of attitudes like that is one thing I find admirable and worthy of note for someone who may be considered an intellectual. I met “Elder Ferrell” while we were missionaries in the same mission, so perhaps I just have a “brushes with greatness” case going on. :)
Like this comment?
0
I might also mention Sheri Dew in this category. Remember her conference talk, “It is not good for man or woman to be alone?” It stands out more than any other to me as a talk where a speaker in General Conference pushed the connection between women and the priesthood, using–in a faithful LDS way–quotes from prophets and apostles compiled in a bold manner. That was in 2001.
I’m not well read on her other works or up on her more recent speaking engagements to add further comment on sustaining intellectualism in her church role.
Like this comment?
1
“He also related what Elder Oaks said in a Young Adult conference. A oung man liked Oaks’ talk, but said it doesn’t apply to his life. Oaks response is an apostle’s job is to give general counsel. Your job to see if it applies. If God wants us in lockstep, he would have created us with no mind.”
That is a core thought important for intellectual thought in the Church.
Like this comment?
1
I don’t know the members of the 70s very well, but when one was called 6+ years ago, someone in the group watching knew the man (from Brazil I think?) and was excited to see someone he met on his mission called to be one of the 70s. Apparently he was a philosophy and political science university professor, who was also a popular speaker. As a counselor in the mission presidency, he had traveled all over speaking. The young man who had known him while on his mission said that the new 70, said that in listening to his talks he learned more about how to think *about* God, than he ever had at General Conference.
I know this isn’t very helpful without a name, but it is an interesting thing to consider that the new intellectuals of the church may not be English speaking, or have any connection to the church university system.
Like this comment?
0