A fascinating scripture for intellectuals to ponder

[LA Ute]

I only like that scripture when I define the "counsel of God" by what I believe in my heart God would want me to do (if He exists).

If "counsel of God" is defined by what some other person tells me God says I should do, then I'm not a fan. Then the scripture strikes me as a little bit cultish: "Do what we tell you to do, don't use your own brain." Not good.

A very interesting take. I've always read "counsel of God" differently, as referring simply to the commandments and acceptance of Christ. The chapter is Jacob speaking about the Atonement and the plan of salvation generally. The prior two verses to the two I quoted state:

26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

27 But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

Then he launches into his warning about the vainness, frailties and foolishness of men who are prone to decide they are too smart for these things. So I don't see it as being about obedience to church authorities so much as simply giving oneself over to Christ and discipleship.

Then in the following verses he really gets going:

30 But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.

31 And wo unto the deaf that will not hear; for they shall perish.

32 Wo unto the blind that will not see; for they shall perish also.

33 Wo unto the uncircumcised of heart, for a knowledge of their iniquities shall smite them at the last day.

34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.

35 Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.

36 Wo unto them who commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell.

37 Yea, wo unto those that worship idols, for the devil of all devils delighteth in them.

38 And, in fine, wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins.

39 O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

So he's whupping on all kinds of human frailty, not just intellectual pride. I think my old teacher Gene England was right. For the rich, their stumbling block is likely to be riches; for the intellectually gifted, it is likely to be that gift.

By the way, as a cardiologist, you must have some insight into this whole "uncircumcised of heart" thing. Does one need to be an EP to perform that procedure?

[I.J. Reilly]

Babs is right, that's not what I am saying. I recognize that I am not perfect and make mistakes. There are two parts to what I am saying.

1. I don't want to be part of a religion that spends most of its time brow-beating me over how dumb, insignificant, sinful, prideful, and crappy I am.

2. This scripture is saying "learn all you want, but when you learn something that may be in disagreement with what we are teaching you, watch out buster!"

Thanks for clarifying. In this case, I will have go with OhioBlue and say that your beef is probably with religious culture, at least as it pertains to Mormonism, for the browbeating. Scriptural evidence (I'm thinking specifically of the BoM here) seems to suggest that the things that you mention are, in fact, problems, but I see no cause for browbeating. Reprove with sharpness and then show forth an increase of love, should the case warrant.

[Jarid in Cedar]

A very interesting take. I've always read "counsel of God" differently, as referring simply to the commandments and acceptance of Christ. The chapter is Jacob speaking about the Atonement and the plan of salvation generally. The prior two verses to the two I quoted state:

26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

27 But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!

Then he launches into his warning about the vainness, frailties and foolishness of men who are prone to decide they are too smart for these things. So I don't see it as being about obedience to church authorities so much as simply giving oneself over to Christ and discipleship.Then in the following verses he really gets going:

Too many people see these as one in the same.

[UtahDan]

Too many people see these as one in the same.

Why, I wonder, would anyone conflate giving oneself over to discipleship of Christ with simply obeying church authority?

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my aword shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the delect of God.
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;
37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;
38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore ball that my Father hath shall be given unto him.
39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

I will chew on it more, but I particularly think that the negative implication of the second set of verses makes it clear that in LDS theology, where we have prophets who could reveal just about anything in theory (see Article of Faith 9), that the concepts of obedience to Christ and obedience to priesthood leaders are nearly, if not completely, indistinct. That is not offered as a criticism, by the way, but I think it is a hard concept to escape. But perhaps my learning leads me to only think that I am wise.

[ERCougar]

LA, do you see an anti-intellectual current in the Church--not necessarily as official doctrine, but in the Mormon culture? I do, but that may be a function of where I live. My problem with that scripture is that it's used too often to tell oneself "I have all the knowledge I need with the Gospel" and thus all other reading, if it's done at all, is focused on the Deseret Book bestseller list. In so doing, they miss out on what I see as one of life's primary purposes--expand our minds. Wisdom ("intelligence") is one of the only things we take out of this life.

[Solon]

LA, do you see an anti-intellectual current in the Church--not necessarily as official doctrine, but in the Mormon culture? I do, but that may be a function of where I live. My problem with that scripture is that it's used too often to tell oneself "I have all the knowledge I need with the Gospel" and thus all other reading, if it's done at all, is focused on the Deseret Book bestseller list. In so doing, they miss out on what I see as one of life's primary purposes--expand our minds. Wisdom ("intelligence") is one of the only things we take out of this life.

The problem with distinguishing between "official doctrine" and "Mormon culture" is that they are not exclusive. LDS recognize living men (and maybe to a lesser extent, women, who have the approval of the men) whose words, guidance, and counsel are de facto doctrine. So, we have Packer's "Unwritten Order of Things" where wearing a white shirt and using "William" instead of "Bill" cross from "culture" into "doctrine." Similarly, other "cultural" practices like prohibitions against tattoos, multiple piercings, etc. have the status of doctrinal authority.

The culture-doctrine rift exists, I'm sure, but it's not as clean as apologists would like it to be.

As for the "when they are learned . . . wise" scripture, I am not at all surprised that a religious book or scripture would caution against moving away from God's teachings in one's intellectual pursuits.

However, some of the greatest scientific, philosophical, and generally intellectual achievements of humankind have only come once the investigators were free of political or religious oversight. In many learned opinions, the lack of authoritative political and/or religious control in 6th century BC Asia Minor allowed the pre-socratic philosophers to question the nature of the world and universe. In other cases, scholars had to carefully couch their words and thoughts in complex allegories or 'theoretical' treatises in order to avoid official condemnation (Erasmus of Rotterdam, Galileo, BH Roberts' Studies of the Book of Mormon).

[Jarid in Cedar]

Why, I wonder, would anyone conflate giving oneself over to discipleship of Christ with simply obeying church authority?





I will chew on it more, but I particularly think that the negative implication of the second set of verses makes it clear that in LDS theology, where we have prophets who could reveal just about anything in theory (see Article of Faith 9), that the concepts of obedience to Christ and obedience to priesthood leaders are nearly, if not completely, indistinct. That is not offered as a criticism, by the way, but I think it is a hard concept to escape. But perhaps my learning leads me to only think that I am wise.

I am a little groggy this AM, counsellor, but can I assume that you agree that many believe that obedience to Christ automatically assumes obedience to church leaders?

[UtahDan]

I am a little groggy this AM, counsellor, but can I assume that you agree that many believe that obedience to Christ automatically assumes obedience to church leaders?

Yes, and what I am trying to say is that this isn't just what some think, it is theologically rooted in the scriptures including those I cited. Notice I made no normative comment about it, just that this is what I believe the state of things to be.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes, and what I am trying to say is that this isn't just what some think, it is theologically rooted in the scriptures including those I cited. Notice I made no normative comment about it, just that this is what I believe the state of things to be.

Thanks. I Need a little more caffeine this morning

[Goatnapper'96]

A few years ago I decided to memorize this scripture from 2 Nephi 9 (I don't have all that many committed to memory). It will mean something different to everyone, but I think it raises questions that are important to anyone who is LDS and interested in the life of the mind:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I love this scripture and have pondered it often, in an effort to "liken the scripture" to myself. I ask myself:

1. Do I allow my learning (such as it is -- just a poli sci B.A. and a law degree) cause me to be vain, frail, and foolish?

2. Okay, I am 'learned' in some subjects, but am I allowing myself to think I am wise simply because of that learning? Am I discounting what the [stake president/bishop/GA] says because I am learned and I don't think he is?

(Somewhat oddly, this often comes to mind when it becomes clear to me that another member of the Church finds me intimidating because he/she knows I am a lawyer. This happens often and I find it embarrassing and a little disturbing, but also thought-provoking: Is there ever something in my demeanor that evokes that response?)

3. What does it really mean to "hearken unto the counsels of God" while still being learned?

I am quite sure there are no hard and fast answers to these questions. I am also sure the scripture is not one intended to be applied to others, but only to ourselves. In my case, it is the honest asking of the questions to myself that benefits me.

I've been thinking for a while now of posting these thoughts here to learn what my fellow CUF-ers think. Please share!

I am not very learned by worldly standards, but I still like this scripture. My take from it is the concept of humility, and not so much submission to priesthood authority initially- although that is included. I find it similar to the scripture upon which the greatest of all cheesy mormon type songs is based....line upon line upon line upon line upon line! So let me be your all's summer shower! That scripture, before being hijacked by the Young Ambassadors or whoever it was, claims that if we don't act upon all knowledge or become complacent we will lose what we have. As mormons we claim to believe "all things," to me that obligates us to being extremely open minded with respect to all knowledge. From my interpretation of the distinction between learned (educational seeking for knowledge) and wisdom (practical application of knowledge) the warning in your scripture is to never believe there isn't more for you to learn. Now with respect to your example, I believe a God like virtue that we are all trying to achieve and mimic is submission. That is a tough thing for people whose professional and educational experiences teach them to question all things. Submission to false creeds is something the LDS Church stands staunchly against. Our own history has enough examples of false priests who oppress to cause us all to pause with respect to our own submission. However, at the end of the day submission to the will of the Father is a Christlike virtue and a submissive attitude is something that can help each one of us to become more like God. So it becomes an interesting fight over the natural man, or Jihad, that we each face.

I do OK with it personally, unless of course fake mamba jambas or the chance to mock an ALUF enter into the equation. Then all bets are off like a prom dress!

[LA Ute]

LA, do you see an anti-intellectual current in the Church--not necessarily as official doctrine, but in the Mormon culture? I do, but that may be a function of where I live. My problem with that scripture is that it's used too often to tell oneself "I have all the knowledge I need with the Gospel" and thus all other reading, if it's done at all, is focused on the Deseret Book bestseller list. In so doing, they miss out on what I see as one of life's primary purposes--expand our minds. Wisdom ("intelligence") is one of the only things we take out of this life.

Yes, that scripture can be used in a mullah-like fashion. I don't think I've ever seen that, but I live outside Utah in a multi-cultural ward that is probably half composed of recent converts. It seems to me that my ward and stake meetings focus mainly on how to live day-to-day LDS lives in an environment where more and more people regard us as having sprouted antlers. But I agree with you that closed-mindedness is a problem with many members of the church. As OhioBlue said, I think that's cultural and probably pops up more in certain more insular parts of the church, perhaps more in parts of Utah than elsewhere.

[byu71]

Yes, that scripture can be used in a mullah-like fashion. I don't think I've ever seen that, but I live outside Utah multi-cultural ward that is probably half composed of recent converts. It seems to me that my ward and stake meetings focus mainly on how to live day-to-day LDS lives in an environment where more and more people regard us as having sprouted antlers. But I agree with you that closed-mindedness is a problem with many members of the church. As OhioBlue said, I think that's cultural and probably pops up more in certain more insular parts of the church, perhaps more in parts of Utah than elsewhere.

You haven't seen that. Haven't you ever visited CB.

[bluegoose]

The irony is that of all peoples under the sun it's only religions who think they possess all truth. This scripture is itself an example of that! Intellectuals reject religion precisely because they know how frail is human understanding and how never ending is the search for truth. Anti-intellecutalism like this is in turn prevalent in many religions because intellectuals tend to critique and challenge and expose religion; but they don't reserve that exercise for religion. In fact usualy religion per se isn't even a target. See Darwin.

While I agree with some your other points, this part in bold is silly. Please show me one person or legitimate religious organization that claims to possess all truth. TIA.

[ERCougar]

Yes, that scripture can be used in a mullah-like fashion. I don't think I've ever seen that, but I live outside Utah in a multi-cultural ward that is probably half composed of recent converts. It seems to me that my ward and stake meetings focus mainly on how to live day-to-day LDS lives in an environment where more and more people regard us as having sprouted antlers. But I agree with you that closed-mindedness is a problem with many members of the church. As OhioBlue said, I think that's cultural and probably pops up more in certain more insular parts of the church, perhaps more in parts of Utah than elsewhere.

I'm not sure it's "Utah", per se. I ran into the same thing in Michigan and Indiana. It may be urban vs. rural, although I've met plenty of exceptions to this as well. Maybe I should just stop stereotyping.

[LA Ute]

You haven't seen that. Haven't you ever visited CB.

LOL. I haven't seen it in my personal life. (I almost never go to CB, by the way.) To answer ER as well, I suspect the more oppressive use of that scripture shows up in culturally insular environments. We have those in very suburban areas of Los Angeles (Valencia, Santa Clarita, Lancaster, Palmdale, Eastern Orange County, Riverside County, to name a few). Where I live used to be like that but not in the last 15 or so years. [EDIT:] Even in those settings I think the "oppresive" use is well-intentioned.