Does intellect have a place?

[UtahDan]

In the May 2008 Ensign Dallin Oaks said:

The Book of Mormon teaches that God will manifest the truth of spiritual things unto us by the power of the Holy Ghost (see Moroni 10:4–5). In modern revelation God promises us that we will receive “knowledge” by His telling us in our mind and in our heart “by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:1–2).

One of the greatest things about our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children is that each of us can know the truth of that plan for ourselves. That revealed knowledge does not come from books, from scientific proof, or from intellectual pondering. As with the Apostle Peter, we can receive that knowledge directly from our Heavenly Father through the witness of the Holy Ghost.

This quote lines up with what I think, though I would probably put it a different way. For me, an appeal to reason in matters of faith ultimately fails. There are too many things that one cannot reason their way out of. And yet, so much of what is said seems to be a tip of the hat to reason. The existence of FAIR and FARMS for example. Any time and argument is made as to why it "makes sense" there is an appeal to reason implicit there.

But people lived for a long time in this world before the age of reason came along, before the idea that things, even things said by authority, should "make sense." I know LA has said, for example, that not everything has to make sense but it can't either be absurd. I'm just thinking this morning, for those who feel as LA does and for all of us who appeal to our intellect and reason to help us solve gospel problems, is there really a good reason to do so? Are we just products of the modern age and assume that reason must aid us?

I realize that one could dodge the question by saying that what Elder Oaks means to say is that knowledge doesn't come solely or primarily from the sources he lists. But I think his words are carefully chosen. Just in my opinion.

So if he is right, is there really any significant place for reason? Do we really and truly need it?

[TripletDaddy]

Oaks is referencing revealed knowledge. Not all knowledge. Unless he is speaking in direct violation of D&C 109:7.

By definition, revealed knowledge comes through revelation. However, there are many forms of knowledge, it would seem. Innate (Light of Christ), conditioned, revealed, self-taught, etc.

The D&C tells us to seek words of wisdom and to seek learning from the "best books." So clearly there is a requisite place for intellectual pursuits.

As a possibly interesting corollary, we learn later in Sec 130 that whatever principle of intelligence we obtain in this life will be to our advantage in the life to come. However, that intelligence is to be learned through "diligence and obedience," not necessarily simply by reading about it.

[byu71]

What if two persons faith is in conflict? Should they then reason or just let it go. I vote for, let it go.

I personally have no interest in seriously debating with a Baptist the "faith alone" vs "faith plus works" concepts.

[Surfah]

What if two persons faith is in conflict? Should they then reason or just let it go. I vote for, let it go.

I personally have no interest in seriously debating with a Baptist the "faith alone" vs "faith plus works" concepts.

I had a Baptist minister tell me that he appreciated my zeal but not my faith.

[byu71]

I had a Baptist minister tell me that he appreciated my zeal but not my faith.

For the record, I appreciate both your zeal and faith.

Note: This is not however a blanket endorsement of all of your opinions.

[UtahDan]

Oaks is referencing revealed knowledge. Not all knowledge. Unless he is speaking in direct violation of D&C 109:7.

By definition, revealed knowledge comes through revelation. However, there are many forms of knowledge, it would seem. Innate (Light of Christ), conditioned, revealed, self-taught, etc.

The D&C tells us to seek words of wisdom and to seek learning from the "best books." So clearly there is a requisite place for intellectual pursuits.

As a possibly interesting corollary, we learn later in Sec 130 that whatever principle of intelligence we obtain in this life will be to our advantage in the life to come. However, that intelligence is to be learned through "diligence and obedience," not necessarily simply by reading about it.

I don't think I suggested any context other than the one that he is talking about which is "spiritual things." If it is by the Holy Ghost that these things are revealed (which I agree with and believe) are reason based supports anything other than something that satisfies the modern mind? They don't seem to be necessary.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is an odd quote. From what I understand from D&C 9, when seeking revelation we are commanded to "study it out in your mind" prior to asking for a spiritual confirmation. How does that not constitute "intellectual pondering"?

[UtahDan]

That is an odd quote. From what I understand from D&C 9, when seeking revelation we are commanded to "study it out in your mind" prior to asking for a spiritual confirmation. How does that not constitute "intellectual pondering"?

Jeff this is the paradox I am sort of getting at. Study things out, but if that doesn't lead you to the right answer you need to understand that that wasn't how you were supposed to receive knowledge in the first place. I suspect I know the reason but wonder what others think. Maybe I've missed something.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am guessing that what he really meant to say is that it does not come solely from intellectual pondering.

[UtahDan]

I realize that one could dodge the question by saying that what Elder Oaks means to say is that knowledge doesn't come solely or primarily from the sources he lists. But I think his words are carefully chosen. Just in my opinion.

I am guessing that what he really meant to say is that it does not come solely from intellectual pondering.

Ha!

[tooblue]

I don't think I suggested any context other than the one that he is talking about which is "spiritual things." If it is by the Holy Ghost that these things are revealed (which I agree with and believe) are reason based supports anything other than something that satisfies the modern mind? They don't seem to be necessary.

Perhaps Oaks is asking us to embrace absurdity as a way of understanding gospel principles. Incongruous experiences and ideas are the hallmark of religiosity. Is reason and absurdity like unto joy and sorrow in that one can only truly understand absolute joy by experiencing abject sorrow?

[byu71]

Perhaps Oaks is asking us to embrace absurdity

Actually, we don't have to guess what he meant. Just go over to CB and ask what he meant. There are a group of posters over there who know exactly the meaning of every word offered by a GA. Not only the meaning for them, but the meaning for each of us.

Note: If you would like the names of those who have this gift, PM me.

[UtahDan]

Perhaps Oaks is asking us to embrace absurdity as a way of understanding gospel principles. Incongruous experiences and ideas are the hallmark of religiosity. Is reason and absurdity like unto joy and sorrow in that one can only truly understand absolute joy by experiencing abject sorrow?

You think the Holy Ghost is absurd? I certainly don't.

[Babs]

Ha!

and the truth comes out: lebowski doesn't actually read your posts. lol.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Perhaps Oaks is asking us to embrace absurdity as a way of understanding gospel principles. Incongruous experiences and ideas are the hallmark of religiosity. Is reason and absurdity like unto joy and sorrow in that one can only truly understand absolute joy by experiencing abject sorrow?

That's funny.