{"id":19149,"date":"2012-02-25T07:33:11","date_gmt":"2012-02-25T12:33:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=19149"},"modified":"2012-02-25T07:33:11","modified_gmt":"2012-02-25T12:33:11","slug":"mormon-intellectuals-a-response-to-jim-faulconer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2012\/02\/mormon-intellectuals-a-response-to-jim-faulconer\/","title":{"rendered":"Mormon Intellectuals: A Response to Jim Faulconer"},"content":{"rendered":"

I disagree with some important parts of Jim\u2019s recent piece on intellectuals in the Church (please read what he said<\/a> first). By the end, I hope it\u2019s clear that it is (in part) for \u201cFaulconerian\u201d reasons that I disagree with him. To begin, I\u2019m going to indulge in a bit of biographical narcissism in order to make a point about the nature of my disagreement.<\/p>\n

The semester recently began, and as I do at the beginning of nearly every course, I told the students a story about Jim Faulconer, or rather about my undergraduate self in one of Jim\u2019s classes. Philosophers believe deeply in the intrinsic and instrumental good of criticism, argument, candid evaluation \u2013 in the overall value of dialectic. As an outside observer recently put it<\/a>, \u201cphilosophers honor each other by disagreeing with each other.\u201d\u00a0For new philosophy students, however, the transition can be a bit rough; and I was no exception. One of my formative educational experiences involved getting a paper back two weeks into my first course as a philosophy major. Jim had assigned us to respond to an essay by Paul Ricouer. I\u2019d undergone a manic experience \u2013 despairingly trying to read what was initially an utterly opaque text, followed by the thrill of coming to grasp some of what it said, followed by the despair of trying to say something intelligent about it, followed by the thrill of thinking (after several revisions), that what I had to say was truly profound \u2013 even thinking that maybe I was a natural at this whole philosophy thing. Jim sent me back an electronic version of my paper that was completely covered with comments. I don\u2019t exaggerate. The paper was a little shy of 5 double-spaced pages and, in addition to correcting my legion of typographical-ish errors Jim had appended 78 substantive comments. All in all, he had more to say about<\/em> my paper than I had to say in<\/em> my paper. I made it through perhaps a page of comments before desperately scrolling down to the bottom to see the large red \u201cD\u201d \u2013 my grade. Despite this initial nauseating experience, I very quickly learned what an amazing investment Jim was making in my education \u2013 something no other teacher had ever done. I\u2019m still convinced that word for word, no professor of mine has ever spent as much time with my writing as Jim did on those undergraduate essays. And I\u2019m not alone. One of my best friends, currently at Oxford, likewise attributes his academic success to classes with Jim Faulconer. I\u2019m quite confident that thousands of former students would say the same.<\/p>\n

At any rate, I hope it will be clear to everyone reading this that in disagreeing with Jim, I genuinely hope to honor him, constructively moving the discussion forward.<\/p>\n

Getting to the specifics of Jim\u2019s post, here\u2019s what he has to say by way of summary at the end:<\/p>\n

It is difficult to remember because we are human, but the responsibility of the Mormon intellectual is, first, not to allow our intellects to separate us from the other members of the Church and, second, to work at being intellectually useless and, thereby, good for the Church on its own terms. We should be good for nothing except what the Kingdom demands.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The first point is straightforward, really important, and as far as I\u2019m concerned simply right. This has long been one of my mantras, and reading Jim now I suspect I picked it up from him.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the second point I take issue with, but since it\u2019s less straightforward it will take some getting into. Jim begins the piece in good Socratic fashion, a gadfly of wisdom, pointing out that education and intellectual acumen do not imply wisdom or moral goodness. While \u201cIntellectuals are no more likely to ask \u2018What effects will what I am doing have on others, on society as a whole?\u2019 than anyone else\u201d they nonetheless are \u201cperhaps more likely to be arrogant about their relation to the rest of society than most.\u201d But the simple reality is, \u201cbeing an intellectual doesn’t make a person more morally insightful than others. Knowledge about the world does not imply virtue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Being a fan of Socrates myself, these points are hard to argue with. In a very different but similarly formative undergraduate classroom I once sat at a seminar table with a group of sycophants praising one another and the professor for being the nobly tragic intellectuals that they were \u2013 fighting the difficult and oh-so-important intellectual battles, persevering in \u201cthe know\u201d and helping to make the Church safe for all of its na\u00efve members. Revolting.<\/p>\n

While we all \u2013 regardless of intellectual bent \u2013 need Jim\u2019s reminder that we \u201care more like everyone else than [we] usually believe,\u201d I believe Jim overextends the point. He begins with pointing out that \u201cif I believe that the Church is, on the whole, led by revelation, then I must be doubly skeptical of my opinions\u201d \u2013 skeptical because I\u2019m human and just as subject to temporary fads and blindspots as anyone, and skeptical about the efficacy of pitting my own thoughts against revelation. Again, this sure seems like sound advice. The overextension comes in his drawing the conclusion that our intellectual endeavors are, therefore, \u201cgood for nothing.\u201d He uses this provocative phrase to catch our attention, but his point is that our endeavors vis-\u00e0-vis the Church as <\/em>intellectuals are useless<\/em> in the technical sense of the term frequently employed by ancient Greek philosophers: intellectual endeavor in the Church may have personal or intrinsic value, but not instrumental<\/em> value. It is not something to benefit the Church institution or its authorities, not something that can be appropriately used to further an agenda or used toward any (supra-personal) end.<\/p>\n

This paragraph is illustrative:<\/p>\n

What, then, ought Mormon intellectuals to do? The first answer is “What everyone else does.” Sit in the pews with your families and friends. When you find a speaker boring or inept, remember that others frequently find intellectuals boring and inept, and love the speaker through (rather than in spite of) the talk he gives. Clean the chapel, do your home teaching, set up chairs when needed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, it\u2019s hard to disagree with these sentiments \u2013 taken on their own. My disagreement comes with the rhetorical \u201cperiod\u201d he places on the advice he gives here. The error lies in the equivocation at play in that \u201cperiod.\u201d No one ought to deny that as<\/em> Mormons<\/em> Mormon intellectuals are like all other Mormons and ought to engage in all the mundane (and divine) activities of the laity. One can say the same of bishops, relief society presidents, and apostles. If we end the conversation here, however, we steamroll over the important contributions that we can all variously make, and indeed those contributions most of us have covenanted to make. Inasmuch as Jim is merely noting (as he explicitly does) that unlike other Churches, we have no specific institutional role for intellectuals, he\u2019s on firm footing. But that surely doesn\u2019t mean that intellectual endeavor is of no institutional or social value in the Church \u2013 which is exactly what his claims come to: \u201cThe place of the intellectual in the LDS Church is not to serve some purpose, to bring something about, or to change affairs any more than the place of any particular non-intellectual in the Church is to bring something about by means of their professions, personal passions, and interests.\u201d\u00a0But this comment strikes me as incredible. Jim and I and many of you have explicitly covenanted to utilize just those things \u2013 our professions, personal passions, interests, time, talents, efforts, etc. \u2013 to building up the Kingdom of God.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

As written, it looks like Jim is making a number of unjustified assumptions that contribute to the overextension of his point. First, in claiming that intellectuals\u2019 contributions need to be \u201cgood for the Church on its own terms,\u201d Jim seems to prioritize institution over individual \u2013 but that get\u2019s the priority relationship exactly backwards. Our work is<\/em> meant to be good for the Church on its own terms, but only because those terms are the exaltation of families \u2013 which is where the priority lies. Second, Jim seems to be removing agency from the equation insofar as \u201cgood\u201d intellectual gifts are concerned \u2013 that which makes the gift good is a matter of institutional approbation; how one\u2019s agency is involved is irrelevant. I think that\u2019s simply wrong (more on this below). Third, Jim assumes that criticism of the Church equates to criticism of those in authority (which obviously would be problematic given our belief in those authorities as prophets, seers, and revelators). This is simply not true. No one who\u2019s had administrative responsibilities in an organization of any size or complexity can maintain the na\u00efve belief that everything done in that organization is a manifestation of the will of the leaders. Prophets in scripture perhaps universally criticize the Church over which they preside \u2013 the two aren\u2019t synonymous.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, Jim begins his article acknowledging that intellectual\u2019s fail society when they fail to lend their intellectual skills to the betterment of society \u2013 which importantly includes much needed criticism. Noting that the Church is not a democracy, however, Jim dismisses the notion that there is a similar obligation for intellectuals with regard to the Church. This is an oversimplification that covers over the issue and its attending stakes. Plausibly, the Church\u2019s non-democratic institutional status means that the service potential of individuals \u2013 or the way in which it is appropriately rendered \u2013 is going to be different than it is in a democracy. That certainly doesn\u2019t mean (at least not without a lot more argument) that there\u2019s no role for it at all.<\/p>\n

I agree that we can get a big head and start viewing our particular talent or passion as disproportionately important, that we are in \u201cthe know,\u201d that our education or intellect gives us special moral insight or wisdom concerning needed reforms, or the like. This fact, however, is not in tension with the notion that our personal talents and skills can be of significant benefit, even without there being a specific institutional role that recognizes and utilizes these talents. This is just as true of intellectuals as it is of basket weavers. Steve Young does not have superior moral <\/em>worth or capital on account of his athletic talent; there is no institutional position to be filled by prodigious Mormon athletes. But to claim that his profession and skill is therefore useless<\/em> \u2013 that it has no potential instrumental value \u2013 is to dismiss the potential that he (and by extension all of us) has to invest his talents in building the Kingdom of God. Just as athletes can contribute \u2013 not exploitatively, but by the manner in which they conduct and \u201cmake use\u201d of themselves \u2013 so too can intellectuals contribute, and in ways specific to intellectual endeavor.<\/p>\n

The proper conclusion for individuals (intellectual or otherwise) seeking to be of use to the Church is humility, not inaction or burying of talents. Treating my gifts as useless for the Church is not a virtue, it\u2019s a vice; it is an act of withholding what God has given us from those we might have helped if we were more actively and agentfully engaged.<\/p>\n

Jim undermines his own argument concerning the \u201cgood for nothing\u201d nature of intellectual endeavor when he endorses the efforts of the Mormon Theology Seminar and the resulting publications by the Salt Press. He speaks of these publications as mere<\/em> \u201cgifts\u201d to the Church without any specific agenda. It seems to me that the relevant question does not concern agendas but whether the gift is a good one (and hence categorized by Moroni as one of those things we ought to seek after) or a bad one. Critically, it can\u2019t be a good gift if it\u2019s not to some degree mindful of itself and has at least some notion of itself as valuable. Imagine someone giving you an immensely helpful gift (as <\/em>a gift) and when you try to sincerely thank them they merely shrug their shoulders with genuine indifference and claim that they see no value whatsoever in the gift they\u2019ve given. You might appreciate what you were given nonetheless, but the nature of the \u201cgift\u201d at this point is very different. As D&C 58:27-28<\/a> reminds us, our agency, especially in the absence of specific institutional direction, is critical. Who we are and our individual talents matter in building the Kingdom, whether we\u2019re serving as prophet<\/a> or sacrament greeter.<\/p>\n

I see Jim\u2019s claims as an oppositional response to what we might call the Margaret Toscano doctrine of intellectual engagement. In a wonderful piece<\/a> that uses our doctrine of Heavenly Mother to highlight the nature of power structures in the Church, Toscano sees within Mormonism both a \u201cdemand for official authorization\u201d and a \u201ctheological need for rigorous philosophical analysis.\u201d[3]<\/a> \u00a0While the former demand is necessarily provided for by Church authorities, the latter need corresponds to the work of intellectuals. Granting a theological need <\/em>for \u201crigorous philosophical analysis\u201d probably entails a moral imperative for those capable of fulfilling that need (i.e., intellectuals). Satisfying such a need seems to be paradigmatically \u201cuseful.\u201d Furthermore, if theology and norms reduce to power structures inhering in (mutable) organization, then there can certainly be no prohibition against intellectuals making use of whatever power the current structure grants them to vie for any changes they deem appropriate. Such power struggles are natural and inevitable rather than more or less appropriate.<\/p>\n

To review and contrast, the relevant implications of Toscano\u2019s position are as follows:<\/p>\n