Okay, everyone, maybe it’s just the Molly Mormon perfectionist streak in me, but it looks like my answer to last week’s query—“Where is the Great Mormon Novel?”—missed the mark a bit, and I need to give it another go. For here is a follow-up query sent along by Nick, our diligent but lonely young Mormon scholar in St. Louis. Grab some gorp to munch on, folks, because it’s a long one, but it is worth reading.
Dear Ask Mormon Girl:
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. But to tell the truth I was really less interested in the fate of the Great Mormon Novel than in hearing you talk more about the status of Mormon scholars in the humanities. I know there are a number of influential LDS humanities scholars out there, but I still feel compelled to ask myself where humanist scholarship stands in relation to Mormon culture. As a graduate student in literature I am the perpetual outsider (my wife is also marginalized by default because she is not a “medical school widow”) in wards filled with aspiring physicians, lawyers, and businessmen (and sometimes women). Each fall when introductions are made in priesthood, special emphasis is given to my marginal status as I am referred to as “our token humanities student” or “the English guy.” When a member of the EQ presidency realized that I wasn’t a medical student on my first Sunday here, his response to me was: “Oh. Well we do have a social work student that just moved in. Perhaps the two of you can be friends.” Periodically I am told (with kind intentions, I’m sure) that “I could never do what you do” by one of my fellow church members, but the subtext is always that “I would never want to and can’t understand why you do.” What makes literary scholarship such a strange pursuit?
This may be nothing more than my limited personal experience, having only been a member of the church since I was 18 and having only lived in Michigan, Missouri, and northern California since that time. Yet I doubt it. A few months ago our current mission president came to speak at our ward and made a point to explain why medical students and physicians eventually make excellent general authorities and church leaders. I felt sick to my stomach as I watched most of the heads in the congregation nod in agreement. What is it about our culture that glorifies these professions as more appropriate that the fabled “life of the mind?” Why must the “bookish” Mormons be isolated and few? Do we have no roles within church leadership? Is our resistance to hierarchy and willingness to deal in contradictions and ambiguities too unstable to be useful/productive?
I love what you said about our role in breaking stereotypes, but at what point should I be concerned that maybe Mormon culture isn’t a living human culture? That maybe we are just as conservative, insular, and intellectually uncurious as I fear? Perhaps it is part of the genetic makeup of literary scholars to be overly anxious about our place in the academy, our communities, our churches, and the world in general. Still, I find myself genuinely confused when I attend my church meetings and leave feeling like I don’t belong there. Help?
Nick in the STL
Okay, Nick, you know how last week I wrote that as a literature professor I certainly “do know the loneliness of which you speak, though I do try not to worry too much about it”? You can’t see it in this font, but the “try” in that sentence actually has sweatbeads running down its forehead.
In fact, the “try” in that sentence has a lot of sweatbeads running down its forehead and is crouching in a really difficult Bikram yoga pose they call “toe stand” where you balance your entire weight while crouching on the ball of one foot. Toe stand requires a very meditative combination of balance, exertion, and letting go. On a good day in yoga class, I can do it for a few seconds. Being a bookish Ph.D. humanities type in the Mormon Church sometimes feels like trying to maintain toe stand for hours on end.
Toe Stand
I don’t know that Mormonism is less hospitable to intellectual types than American culture in general, but it’s true that there are some specifically Mormon aspects to the loneliness you’re experiencing. Mormonism is a very young tradition, an exceedingly practical faith, with an entirely lay clergy. Aside from other evangelical movements born out of the Second Great Awakening, we may be the only religion of our global scale that does not prescribe dedicated formal study of religious history, thought, practice, or text as a prerequisite for church leadership. And because we view ourselves as a restoration of primitive Christian practices, we generally do not engage with the millennia of debate and scholarship through which other Christian traditions have defined themselves. All of this contributes to the practical rather than intellectual orientation of our faith.
Compounding this is the fact that the theological program of the Church in the twentieth and twenty-first century has been governed by correlation, a very sensible and practical effort to render from a very unsystematic and sometimes highly speculative century’s worth of theology a coherent system of doctrines that can be taught effectively to new members of the Church around the globe. (For a great overview of the correlation project and its tolls on speculative theology, listen here.)
Moreover, if you trace back through Mormon history, you will find cycles of intellectual expansiveness and retrenchment reaching back into the nineteenth century. (For one example, look up the “Godbeites.”) About twenty years ago we entered another turn of that cycle that culminated in 1993 with the firing of progressive humanities scholars from BYU, the excommunication of a number of feminists and intellectuals, and a speech by a major Church leader declaring “so-called scholars or intellectuals” one of three major dangers to the Church. It was a difficult time for Mormon feminists and many Mormon scholars in the humanities, and it has had lasting legacies within Mormon culture and within institutional scholarship.
Now, this isn’t the whole story, but it all factors into what you are experiencing as a Mormon scholar in the humanities. And boy, do I know it ain’t pretty. I often hear Mormon people I love routinely associate reliance on “the arm of flesh” with scholarship and intellectual activity—and they don’t mean physics professors . . . they mean New-York- Times-reading-complexity-craving-literature-philosophy-and-history-reading- liberals-like-me-and-you. I rarely hear Mormon people I love associate reliance on “the arm of flesh” with money or economic or social class.
What should we make of all this? Should this, as you suggest, give us cause to wonder if there’s something wrong with Mormon culture? I can’t answer that for you, but I can share with you a couple of ways I try to keep my balance and stay in the proverbial toe stand when I’m feeling isolated among people I love. First, during trying times (like the 1990s), it has been a consolation to me to imagine all of the members of the Mormon movement around the globe and across time, then to focus in on the small band of people like you and me, and then to realize that our worries and lonesomeness, while real and authentic to us, are a small part of a big story. Second, it helps me to remember that Mormon tradition is young, young, young. Oh so very young. With many chapters left to be written—maybe even by people like us. “Hope is the memory of the future,” wrote the Catholic artist Sister Corita Kent. I remember the future.
Okay, really, now, enough from me. Readers, what are your hopes for the future of Mormonism? And should bookish, scholarly types like Nick and me have reason for hope as well?
Send your query to askmormongirl@gmail.com, or follow askmormongirl on Twitter.
Until someone is willing to stand up in the meetings where scholarly types, liberals, and others are being marginalized, things will not change. I know it seems harsh, but that could be due to my experience in church yesterday. One of the speakers made extremely inappropriate remarks about the current US government and was not stopped by the bishopric. I then made the mistake of going to Sunday School, where others were emboldened by the sacrament meeting talk and continued to use Fox News style rhetoric. Unfortunately, by the time I was moved to get up and speak I was too angry to say anything constructive, so I got up and walked out. I spent most of the day extremely angry and sad because I finally accepted that I do not want to associate with most of the ward in any context. There is only one sister in the ward that I feel I can be myself around.
I am considering speaking to the bishop, but I know him well enough to know that this would be only so that I could say I made an attempt at making the ward a more hospitable place for everyone.
That said, tere is hope if you can a) find enough like minds in your ward or b) find the courage and patience to speak out.
Joanna has done an excellent job speaking to Mormon attitudes toward intellectualism. In LDS culture, the “fabled ‘life of the mind’” (as Nick describes it) is often associated with such perceived ills as secularism, atheism, and political liberalism. By contrast, business school and law school are largely seen as “safe.”
But I don’t think that the prevalence of lawyers, doctors, and businessmen in our midst is simply a function of LDS anti-intellectualism. Let’s keep in mind that Mormon men are told, practically from infancy, that they are supposed to be the “providers.” If your goal is to raise a big family off of a single income, a six-figure salary is all but a necessity. I’ve known a number of Mormon men who began their college careers in the arts or humanities, but switched to a more lucrative field of study after getting married. For many of them, I’m sure that this decision had more to do with future earning power (i.e., being a “provider”) than with pursuing passions.
With a bachelor’s degree in English and a masters degree in Theatre History I have some sympathy for the humanities scholar. As the father of seven children, I had to find a better revenue source to feed, clothe and educate my kids, so I turned to mammon and got my MBA.
I suspect most who pursue professional degrees (medicine, law, business) are motivated by money first, prestige and then whatever idealism that may be left. (How can there be any in business school? I don’t know.)
I will say that when I enrolled in my PhD program in Theatre History (pre-disillusionment; pre-MBA), I was in a ward of many scholars in many fields. I never felt marginalized there, so perhaps some of what you feel is unique to your geography.
Being an intellectual does not necessarily mean that one runs counter to the church or its norms, though some do, just as there may be crooked attorneys and business people who also run afoul of gospel teaching.
I suspect that many who wonder what to say to a humanities scholar do so because they simply don’t know what to say; they don’t know squat about Milton or Cervantes or Rafael. DeCartes and Shakespeare may be foreign to them; comparative literature may bore them (if they’ve even heard of it). (I will say that one of my favorite people in that ward where I was a grad student — though he intimidated me to no end — was chief of surgery of a local hospital, and a comparative lit professor at my university.)
Sadly community is not instant for all members of the church. We need to seek it, to nurture it, and sometimes to create it.
Nick, what makes you think lawyers can not enjoy or be involved in the life of the mind? Or that hard science graduate students are not in that endeavor? In my profession, as an attorney, I constantly write, think and research. I’m involved in research and writing outside of work as well. The biggest problem some humanities types have is an inability to communicate, which seems strange, as they are supposed to be studying various methods of communication and what they have to share. As a result, others don’t know what the humanities scholars do, other than insular things they can’t communicate or give meaning.
Which leads to seeing the humanities as either self indulgence (like when my seven year old announced she wanted to major in studying animated cartoons in a particular genre when she grew up) or insular artificial constructions. Those in them are often seen as angry with others, self-focused and … well you know the drill.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Paul mentions the chief of surgery at his local hospital — proof that even doctors can be involved in the life of the mind.
@Nick
If you were in my ward, I’d skip all of church just to talk with you about your studies. Seriously, I’m fascinated by the humanities.
Re the op
This was actually my first thought. Frankly, I think that those in the humanities are just less revered than those in the hard sciences and mathematics. Kinda like scientists are revered less than LeBron James. My impression is that many think that the humanities just aren’t as hard, or as important as the more practical professions. To corroborate this idea, if one’s salary is an indicator of how much one’s work is valued in society, it is clear that humanities professors simply are not as valued as engineering professors (at least at most major universities of which I’m aware).
I think it likely, as AMG has indicated, that this is exacerbated in Mormonism due to our pragmatism. Mormonism does have a general problem with intellectualism of any variety, but the engineering, and science professors at BYU are too busy being nerdy to make trouble for the church. It is those who are preoccupied with culture that cause difficulty and those are almost invariably the humanities folks.
Finally, a word on the “arm of flesh.” In our Mormon culture, intellectualism is viewed with skepticism. It is embraced/celebrated as long as it doesn’t trample on any religious tenet. But when it does it becomes an enemy with many scriptures to put it in its place. This, as AMG has identified, is considered the “arm of flesh” or our own secular learning. What I find interesting is that no Mormons I know identify reliance on the “arm of flesh” as blindly following human leaders in authority, even if it’s the prophet (which I think any prophet would condemn). This is what I consider to be relying on the “arm of flesh.” Good scholarship should be relied upon and embraced as part of our search for all truth which Mormonism most certainly should contain. Loyalty, on the other hand, is no virtue at all.
The overall problem with self-proclaimed intellectuals is just that, they are self-proclaimed, when in fact, they may be no more intellectual than a wallpaper hanger who enjoys reading Shakespeare. That somehow they are “above it all” because they, are not “in it” for the money but for the intellectual stimulation.
Some people become Doctors or Lawyers because they want to help others, not just make a lot of money. You can do that with scams on EBAY, nowadays.
You might notice that many of our Church Leaders were and are quite well read and quote a significant amount from the great authors and literature of their day. They might even be “intellectuals” as well as church leaders. the fact is our schools do not promote literature and teaching of the great authors and philosophies. you have to be very interested in it to pursue it these days.
I do not think the church is anti-intellectual as much as they are anti “push your own agenda on everyone else.”
Look, I do not appreciate the FOX news/Beckite folks at church spouting off their beliefs as though it were Church doctrine either, but I get equally tired of the so-called intellectuals crying persecution as well.
The Glory of God is Intelligence, not intellectualism……
I think most commenters have it right: it’s not the scholarship. If anything, the LDS Church supports scholarship. It’s the smarter-than-thou attitude that many people get turned off by. As a pseudo-intellectual (that is, someone who reads and asks more questions than most are comfortable with, but without any skills or knowledge of those who truly fit that category), I have seen many members react poorly to what they perceive as my believing I know better than they.
You mean like a change to the constitution that overturns a decision from the supreme court of a state? Like that kind of agenda pushing? Oh, right, you mean the kind where we don’t agree with the agenda being pushed.
Man, I hear that they don’t push math and science in schools, and now I hear they don’t promote literature and philosophy in schools. What do they teach in schools these day?
Actually, in all seriousness, I think this is true. But it is also taken too far and used as a stereotype. I doubt most lay people know whether or not someone really is a well recognized individual in their respective field. As a result, it’s too easy to view someone as “self-proclaimed intellectual” when, in fact, they may be an expert in their field.
Jmb275 – most schools seem to teach kids how to take standardized tests. The subject matter comes second to test-taking skills.
Amen to Jeff Spector.
I feel for Nick.
I think the problem that some people have with intellectuals is this,”What is it that you plan on doing with that, and or what do you do all day.” I faced the same kind of snobbery as a nanny for twenty years in D.C. My ward was comprised of many lawyers and government types. I would be introduced in a similar manner and often treated just as the parents themselves treated me.
They would constantly ask me what I did all day with their children. It wasn’t like I could give them a hard copy finished at the end of the day, but,”my kids,” all hit their mild stones way ahead of schedule. Why, because I worked with them everyday. That was my hard copy of my project, but parents still didn’t recognize it. I think of intellectuals in the same way, they don’t have a hard copy as to what they do every day with their time and people tend to view it as a waste.
I also find snobbery in the business world, for example, when I would go on interviews they would ask me, “why did you decide to become an English major.” To which I reply,” I know I don’t want to become a doctor, or lawyer, that’s not where my skills lie, but I also think its’ more important to be able to read, write and communicate well. Besides, most companies will train and teach you to do the job they want to hire you for.
JMB275
“As a result, it’s too easy to view someone as “self-proclaimed intellectual” when, in fact, they may be an expert in their field.”
I think people appreciate expertise, we need experts in all fields of endeavor. Just like we do not need a bunch of “holier than thou” church members telling everyone else why they are off-track, we certainly do not need a bunch of “Smarter than thou,” folks telling us we can’t know or understand all that they can….
jmb275 ‘Finally, a word on the “arm of flesh.” In our Mormon culture, intellectualism is viewed with skepticism. It is embraced/celebrated as long as it doesn’t trample on any religious tenet.’
I think this is a really important thing to remember. As a Ph.D student in Sociology I have met some scepticism regarding my career path from my SP. Yet, that same SP has called to me responsibilities of trust within our stake where people will hear my thoughts regularly. My point is that though these attitudes are often a knee-jerk reaction to aspiring or actual academics, I have seen these views change when personal associations are built and people are able to observe the commonality of our believing. In addition I should note that, for me at least, finding that community has been easier because on many of the broad issues I do have that commonality, if you don’t then the process becomes decidedly more difficult I suspect.
Re Aaron R.
Yeah. The dynamic to me feels like academics are initially viewed with suspicion. However, once it is clear that the academic is on our “team,” the fear goes away. That is the best point to be at since the social capital is now available and real edification can take place.
@14 — “The dynamic to me feels like academics are initially viewed with suspicion. However, once it is clear that the academic is on our “team,” the fear goes away.”
Er, kinda like lawyers in most popular society…
I agree with the gist of what is being said. I do want to point one thing out, however. Lots of professional folks are just a bookish, liberal and intellectual as those who choose scholarship as a vocation. Just as one example, have you noticed how many lawyers are hanging around the bloggernacle?
Some recommendations:
1. You need to build a reservoir of goodwill in your ward, or what we call “street cred.” Participate in the life of the ward: volunteer to help folks move, do your home teaching. When people see that you’re a loyal and participating member, whatever fears they have about your academic career will melt away.
2. If you act like you’re a faithful scholar, others will perceive and treat you that way. Go ahead and make thoughtful comments in classes with confidence. Act like of course the Church needs and values the contributions of scholars, and those with little experience with or exposure to scholarship will begin to follow your lead.
3. Don’t asssume that just because someone has an M.D. or J.D. or M.B.A that he is not interested in the humanities. I’m a lawyer by profession, but I did my undergrad in classics and would have become a professor but for a terrible recesseion and the pending birth of my first child, which forced me to follow a more pragmatic path. But if we were in the same ward together I would be interested in what you’re studying.
4. It may not be practicable to get all of your need for community met entirely by just your ward family. Expand your community by participating in the Association for Mormon Letters, the Mormon blogosphere, Sunstone, the Mormon History Association, and so forth.
Take a look at Table 32 in Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003, found on page 86 of the PDF. The table details which schools previously awarded baccalaureate degrees to those who received doctorates in 2003. Brigham Young University was the alma mater for 1,065 of the 135,960 new PhDs that year.
Table 32 gives the breakdown according to type of doctorate awarded. Of the BYU alumni, 187, or 17.6%, received a PhD in the humanities. That is a slightly higher percentage than the nation’s overall, 15.7%. So though it’s true that BYU graduates who pursue higher education predominately pursue business, medicine, engineering and science and avoid the humanities, it also appears to be no more true of them than of American graduates in general.
Note that BYU ranked 10th in that report for production of undergraduates who went on to earn a PhD, which isn’t too shabby. Also, 17.6% is about one out of six, which though a minority, is a non-trivial chunk. Nick in STL’s local concentration of medical students doesn’t hold in most places.
17 Kevin — excellent thoughts for anyone new to any ward.
Kevin
It doesn’t work in all wards, specifically, it did not work in mine, including taking care of children who were placed in temporary foster care because of a family crisis. I don’t regret one minute helping those kids because I was the only one in the ward who could explain the foster care system to them while taking care of them, but I never received the kind of support that your speaking of.
So, while on the face of it, I agree with what your saying, I think it can leave you feeling burnt out, because people are to wrapped up in their own lives to “notice any of your volunteer work you may do for the ward.
Elder Holland’s Ph.D. from Yale was in American Studies, which I would consider part of the humanities (his B.A. was in English).
I agree with Joanna that the apparent “inquisition” in the 1990s struck fear, or at least made many members who came of age at that time very cautious about applying intellectual or scholarly tools to issues related to the Church. I think, though, with four former university/collegel presidents in the FP and 12, the environment in the Church now is much more open than it was in the 1990s, in fact, more open than at any other time that I recall.
Your mileage may vary (and does vary) depending on the congregation.
Disclaimer: English Lit BA (emphasis theater and poetry. MDT minor), and MA Theoretical Linguistics, ergo “bookish mormon intellectual” who eventually had to get a real job to feed/clothe/protect his family.
It has low-tolerance BS detectors with an emphasis on practicality. Not much different from the world’s population in general. There are pockets of cultures that have turned off their BS detectors.
Someday, young padawan, you will learn that reading people’s thoughts and writing about what you think about them is pure, circular, insulated B.S. Also using terms like “life of the mind” is adding a nice topping of B.S. sauce and a cherry on top.
Scientists *do* things. Engineers *invent* things. Businessmen *build and distribute* things. Social workers *help* people. Physicians *heal* people. The “life of the mind” doesn’t *do* anything, so many people have a hard time taking it as anything more influential, important, or noteworthy as it is (which is to say “not very much”). The only influential writers/speakers/thinkers in history are ones that also *did* things (like invent stoves, free slaves, incite revolts, etc)
They don’t have to be; they makes themselves that way. I’ve seen/been it. They should get out more and do things, create things, effect and enrich the lives of others.
I can’t speak to this, really. I’ve had more local leadership callings than I can shake a stick at. But I’m just as sure I won’t ever be in GA territory since I don’t live in UT or have any GA friends or family.
Wow. I could unpack the presuppositions that completely *load* this question, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Your romantic vision of what you are and what you do is keeping you from greater relevance. You’ve imagined “bookish” intellectuals as a type of Byronic Hero, and in truth the Byronic Hero is always a fiction, and so is the academic-and-martyr romance you’ve got here.
Everyone wants to be noticed, relevant, valued, etc. (it’s not bad to want that, it’s intrinsic motivation). I feel bad that you don’t feel that way. In my opinion, it’s not Mormonism, the “church culture,” Republicans, or med-students that are doing that. It’s the fact that you *love* to do something that isn’t noticeable or relevant to most of the human race. Deal with it. You can’t be validated by society for things they don’t like or know about or care about.
Sorry about the harsh light of day. It’s purifying, though.
#3: “I suspect most who pursue professional degrees (medicine, law, business) are motivated by money first, prestige and then whatever idealism that may be left. (How can there be any in business school? I don’t know.)”
Define “idealism.”
If it encompasses the desire to make the world a better place, I submit that a creative-minded businessman or lawyer is capable of doing just as much or more for human benefit than a Ph.D Schopenhauer expert.
So much of the output of modern, specialized, full-time public intellectuals, pales in comparison to much of what came before from men and women whose “idealism” was a part-time vocation, exercised in tandem with the need to earn a living. Turning “Intellectual” into a job description, as opposed to part of the makeup of a Renaissance man, has damaged intellectual life. It’s created incentives for groupthink, as in, you won’t be considered an intellectual if your opinions deviate too far from the approved Intellectual narrative, or What All Informed People Think about a given issue.
While I agree that getting Church leaders so heavily from professional ranks, may place too great a premium on execution over creation, there is something about working in the real world* that may help keep some of the more abstract flights of intellectual fancy grounded. I don’t think for a moment that John Adams or Abraham Lincoln would have risen to a tenth of their level of wisdom, if they’d had tenure or a sinecure at the New York Times.
*In the immortal words of Bill Murray the Ghostbuster, “Personally, I liked the University; they gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there. I’ve worked in the private sector–they expect results!”
I think Proverbs 26:12 gets it best: “Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.”
23, Thomas: Fair point. I thought the line you quoted from me was a bit harsh just after I hit the “Submit” button.
I will say, however, that I do not exercise my idealism in my workplace, though I am idealistic. In terms of doing good, we may do it all sorts of ways, but altruism is not in and of itself a business model. That said, the most successful business models are likely to do good, since they will produce positive economic effects beyond the direct benefit to the shareholders.
I did not mean to suggest that scholars are inherently more idealistic than those who earn degrees in the professions. But business school is not generally there to foster idealism. Maybe law school and med school aren’t either. And my own experience with my Theatre History PhD program (pre-disillusionment) was that it wasn’t either.
Nick, if you’re still reading, hang in there. Stop assuming that everyone’s out to ignore you or devalue you and make a place for yourself.
Hold on, hold on, everybody. I’m not acquainted with any intellectuals who spend all their days doing nothing but reading and thinking. Most of the intellectuals I know work for a university and are expected to both contribute (i.e. lecture, research, publish) to the world’s knowledge in their given expertise _and_ teach young people how to think critically and train them with skills they will use either in private enterprise or public service. That may not amount to building a bridge, healing a sick person, doing a landmark deal, or convicting a murderer (or perhaps even building a home, giving people antibiotics, selling a case of Noni juice, or writing up a business contract), but every person emerging from institutions of higher education with a degree that allows them to work in their desired field had to be taught by a master, an intellectual.
“…but every person emerging from institutions of higher education with a degree that allows them to work in their desired field had to be taught by a master, an intellectual.”
Or put more cynically, every person emerging from institutions of higher education (which, by and large, leave their graduates with barely as much actual knowledge, and probably considerably less wisdom, as a decent high school once did), with credential that the likes of Jefferson or Patrick Henry didn’t have to spend seven years and a cool hundred grand obtaining but which now serves the professional guilds well by restricting competition, may well be taught by a white-knuckled semi-ignoramus who has mastered the insider’s jargon that is sufficient to count one as an expert in some dubiously rigorous specialty, and so passes herself off unsteadily as an “intellectual.”
Prof. Dud, you know who you are.
I don’t have too much to say except that I think I know what ward this individual is talking about. Me and my wife only met one couple who was not in medical school with a wife they met at BYU. The Bishop spoke to me about his concern that the ward was clique-ish, but this was reflected in a sacrament talk about conformity assigned to somebody in Medical school and his wife that he met at BYU. -sigh-
I believe that his type of mentality is prevalent in most walks of life, not just in the wards you have been in. My ward is a partial university ward as the Newcastle uni is at the centre of the boundaries so most uni students live in the area. So we have all sorts within our ward and nothing like the examples above are said or done. However, many people both inside and outside of the church call a Bachelor of Arts a charity Bachelor, or a ‘bugger all’ (ie BA). This is because to get into a BA course at uni requires less in the school leaving exams than other uni courses. Thus most people see it as an easy course with no brain power needed.
In saying that, I have a PhD on biology and am in medical research, but I have met many a person with a BA that I hold in respect for their apparent intelligence and knowledge base. My brother did not do very good at school, but he can do many things that I cannot, so how can I say that I am more intelligent than he? Intelligence is something we cannot fully understand nor measure so I wouldn’t bother with people who have an ‘I’m better than you’ attitude because they have a medical/engineering/lawyer/etc degree. Their pride will be their downfall on the day of judgment.
N. … ah …. what about people who are running programs where no one gets tenure track jobs on graduation? I’ve been reading a lot in The Chronicle on the entire area of endeavor.
I have to admit, I’ve a nephew in med school. His passion is sculpture. He realized he would need a patron, saw how much time and effort it took to develop patrons, and decided to be his own. I’ve another nephew who just got a PhD from MIT. He was first in his class undergraduate in classical studies as well as math and physics (he received a triple major from a U.C. school).
It is not as if we are all philistines out here.
Many people who fancy themselves as intellectual have a particular disdain for those who don’t meet their criteria. Most everyone is smart. Really. You want people to like you? Take an interest in what they do. Some folks find 19th century British literature fascinating, while others are drawn to football, making large pieces of metal go fast down a raceway, catching fish, or something else that is way beneath you. Nobody knows it all and everyone can learn something from someone. Trying to learn something from someone else can be more eye opening than hearing yourself talk about all the cool things you know. I’ve learned this from years of experience and observation. Anyone been to the LA First ward? Talk about a group of people full of themselves.
#6 – I more or less agree with this. I mean, no offense to the OP, but doesn’t it seem like it’s basically a prerequisite to being a liberal arts/humanities type academic to have a healthy dose of persecution complex? I’m really not trying to be offensive, but I think intellectuals of the type being discussed by the OP have a lot in common with artists in that they don’t feel like they’re being completely true to their milieu unless they’re underappreciated and neglected to some degree.
As a follow up I would add that I have a hard time generating too much sympathy for someone who voluntarily associates him or herself with a group that is so truly true to stereotype as are members of the Mormon church, and then complains that they are being ignored for being outside of the stereotype. Obviously I’m not simply talking about being a lawyer vs being a humanities academic; but part of this discussion relates to more liberal vs more conservative ideologies. Not only are the overwhelming majority of Mormons extremely conservative politically and socially, but the church is fantastically clique-ish (not necessarily in the sense that members within a ward or stake divide into cliques, although that is often true as well, but in the sense that membership in the church is, in and of itself, membership in a giant clique). If you don’t meet the standards of the clique, you are on the outs. Unfortunately, most of the standards of the church clique are out in the open and everyone can pretty easily tell whether you meet them or not. If this is a problem for you, perhaps you should find a new group to associate with. Beyond that, if you think you’ve got it bad, imagine those sub-groups that have it so much worse than you. Think of what it must feel like to be gay or even a single adult in the church.
Nick, Fitting in is something that never worked for me. I have a humanities undergraduate degree and I wish you were in my ward.
My personal observations 16 years later:
1) Usually high priests are less judgmental and more understanding than elders. There is something about life (i.e. massive humbling challenges) that makes men in church more accepting as they age. Being with them is something to look forward to in the future.
2) Most wards have a large number of people with tremendous needs. If you see people in a different light, there are probably people you would be best attuned to communicate with or to help or to support. Such service is very gratifying.
3) Eventually you will graduate and get a stable job, and probably not live in a rich suburb of a major city. Then you will be the stable and relatively wealthy ones. Remembering how it felt may help you treat those without formal education as your equals.
4) Many people who are not interested in the Humanities are quite bright and have learned many important lessons. It is possible to accept them and learn from them and to try to see life from their point of view. Most people think seriously about their problems and most can share great insights. For example you may meet someone like Cordelia in King Lear, instead of someone who studies and talks about the play. The Humanities helps me more richly appreciate the people I meet.
I’m a physician and went into the field for the scientific challenge. I originally planned to go into pathology, although I later changed my mind. I’m glad I stayed put in my state University and didn’t go through a ward like Nick described. Ugh.
Like a number of colleagues in the medical field, there was a brainy/geeky stereotype phase of my high school career. I still nourish my inner band geek every summer by following drum and bugle corps scores and even going to a show occasionally. I have the opportunity to work with a number of youth in the ward and actually connect with many of them who play musical instruments. I encourage them, compliment them, learn about their interests. Then I seem them in the community at events and it comes back full circle. I was even able to play in a pep band with them this year on one special night. I don’t spend a great deal of time hanging out with my similar age peers because of callings that I have, but the time I do can certainly be a lot more draining. I would like to connect with more “bookish” fellow ward members, although there is not a great framework in the Sunday block or the activities committee to help with this. Thus it turns often to sitting on the back row during a dull activity and being a fellow non-participator with a “bookish” buddy while we have our minute or two to socialize until one of our kiddos demands our attention.
My High Priest’s group is dominated by ex-military men who probably were the antagonist in their day to the band kids back in their day. They are more mellow now…forced to be because their aging skeletons, but still able to express opinions that have not necessarily mellowed. I’ve described before my feeling that being pushed into the High Priests group meeting feels “punitive”.
I would say to Nick, who care’s if the Mission President is sucking up to the doctor’s and lawyers in the group. You know it’s not right that he is doing so. Who cares if the people are nodding. They probably continue nodding throughout his talk with everything else he says, then are going home and making snide comments about the things they didn’t agree with.
Think of the youth/young adults in the church. There will be someone/someday who is touched in a way that others couldn’t because of the background/experience/education you have. There will be a ward and stake project that you will be able to enhance because of your knowledge and skills. And I would encourage you to break those assumed stereotypes your fellow ward members have implied. Befriend those medical students along with the Social Work student. Medical school “widows” can find their lives incredibly lonely and would value rather than marginalize a friend who makes an effort to find something in common. It’s not fair that you should have to do this, but neither was it fair that I was humiliated in my Young Men’s days for skipping church basketball in favor of practicing for All-State Concert Band.
OP/Mormon Girl:
The current environment stems from its history; chiefly, it’s origin. It was founded by an intelligent, young boy who had not been perverted by some of the concepts in academia. The Glory of God is intelligence, but it also involves being ‘doers and not hearers only’. Learning the lessons of life, not just the lessons from books.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but liberals tend to be more about concept than application. They tend to be more a about perception than reality. They tend to be ideologues. Like the current US administration, their grandiose ideas sound good, but in practice they damage the people they are trying to help.
Back to the original statement, the Lord needed a person that could implement the concepts, not conjure thought provoking ideology. He needed a doer like Joesph Smith. Likewise, the church needs doers of good; not just preachers of good. Along these lines, Doctors, Businessmen and the like tend to be doers highly focused on achievement; professors and literary experts tend to be idealist reformers and do not make good leaders of men.
#35 — Fascinating analysis, especially considering the conservative doers in the Savior’s day were the Pharisees, who had created many things to be done in order to be right with the law.
Paul,
I don’t know their political affiliation, but they were definitely the intellectuals of the day who sat back and debased everything the Savior did and said. Your bringing up the Pharisees enhances my argument as they were the quintessential “Hearers and not doers”.
#36 — The Pharisees were actually least legalistic of the Jewish sects of the Savior’s day, and took the most liberal (that is, loosest, and most symbolic) approach to the requirements of the Law. This may have been because, unlike the aristocratic, priestly Sadducees, the populist Pharisees believed that the Law (including its ritual requirements) was to be observed by all of Israel, not just the priestly caste (echoes of Mormonism’s lack of a formal clergy/laity distinction?) and so created the proverbial “mint and anise and cumin” interpretations of the Law, by which they made teh Law something that ordinary people could reasonably hope to comply with.
The New Testament’s suggestion that the Pharisees were hyper-legalistic is true only in the sense that Judaism itself was more legalistic than the proposed new Christian covenant. As Jews went, the Pharisees were probably about as loosey-goosey as they got until bacon-gobbling Reform Jews were invented.
Thomas,
Thanks for the insight. You seem well versed.
Thomas, it’s a nice idea to try to find an ancient correspondent for modern day, lazy, loosy-goosy intellectuals in the Pharisees (I mean, who doesn’t love to find parallels to those quintessentially terrible Jews!), but I’m afraid your characterization of the Pharisees is more imagination than reality. The few ancient sources that we have of Pharisees (Josephus, NT texts, a few strange mentions in the Talmud) tell a different story. To the extent that they could be described as a populist movement (which is somewhat sketchy) has nothing to with being some sort of a more lax version of the Law.
TT, I confess to having a more or less Wikipedia-level understanding of the Pharisees, but that and some of the comments I have from people who’ve studied this are the basis for my conclusions.
I’m afraid that one went right over my head. What are we trying to say here?
Thomas,
While I agree with you ultimately that the Pharisees cannot be accurately characterized as “legalistic,” that is more because such a negative designation has more to do with Christian polemics against Jews than the actual reality of Jewish religion. Frankly, I find this rhetorical move a bit anti-Jewish (despite insistent denials that it isn’t). Coupled with your hostile characterizations of reform Judaism, I was a bit put off. Mostly, I was objecting to the rather silly rhetorical trope to link the Pharisees with the people you oppose. It is essentially the equivalent of saying Hitler did such and such, therefore you are like a Nazi. I mean, is st1305 serious that doctors are better “leaders of men” than English professors, because like Pharisees, they are hearers and not doers? Does s/he have any clue what English professors (or other professional intellectuals) do?
st1305 raises explicitly one of the points in Nick’s original post that I feel has been underdiscussed here. Namely, is there a bias in leadership selections for certain professions over others? Should there be? It is evident from the comments here that those who hold such opinions have essentially no understanding of what professional scholars do.
#3 Paul – “I suspect most who pursue professional degrees (medicine, law, business) are motivated by money first, prestige and then whatever idealism that may be left. (How can there be any in business school? I don’t know.)”
Really?? The two most idealistic classes in my graduate work were social entrepreneurship and non-profit management in a business school. Sure there are shallow, self-absorbed me types in those programs, just like everywhere…but making intellectually lazy comments about supposed intellectually lazy groups of people is a bit irnonic.
Idealism is no less incompatible with profit motives than is intellectualism with spirituality.
TT,
You took it way to personal. Let me put it another way. A church leadership position is highly task oriented. Medical and business professionals are, by their very nature, task oriented. This is one of the reasons why they went into their respective professions. It is a simple marriage of the two — putting a task oriented person with a task oriented position.
In contrast, and generally speaking, those involved in literary fields tend to be less task oriented. Two definitions of literary include:
1) characterized by an excessive or affected display of learning; stilted; pedantic.
2) preferring books to actual experience; bookish
This is my observation and a reasonable explanation of why leadership positions are slated towards task oriented professions.
“Coupled with your hostile characterizations of reform Judaism, I was a bit put off.”
Dude, if a jocular reference to Reform Jews eating bacon strikes you as “hostile,” you need to dial your shoulder-chip settings back several notches.
“Mostly, I was objecting to the rather silly rhetorical trope to link the Pharisees with the people you oppose.”
Again, you missed the point rather spectacularly (though that could always be the point-maker’s fault). It was not to “link Pharisees with the people I oppose” (I think you think that means “intellectuals,” but of course no thinking person opposes the genuine article, without opposing himself), but rather to rebut the idea that the Pharisees were “conservative doers,” i.e., a bunch of anti-intellectual, obsessive-compulsive ritual minutiae-miners. To the contrary (and pace the New Testament’s one-dimensional presentation of them, the Pharisees were absolutely not the unthinking control freaks #36 would have them as. They were thoughtful, relatively humane, and liberal-minded (in the original sense of the term). If they hadn’t been so apparently hostile to the Lord (I suspect this was, as often occurs, a function of people with generally good ideas, falling victim to the temptation of reacting to an even-better doctrine as competition rather than a source of even further enlightenment), I think I’d have liked them more than most of the other schools of thought around in Jesus’ time.
“Does s/he have any clue what English professors (or other professional intellectuals) do?”
Yes. They torture Shakespeare until he confesses to being a radical feminist, or a pacifist, or whatever other manner of -ist the professor wants him to be. Seriously, modern “intellectual” life has been so thoroughly corrupted by the expressly antirationalist doctrine of postmodernism, that to call any but a remnant few of the people called “intellectuals” by that name is an abuse of the language.
#43, James, please see my comment #24 in which I’ve already accepted on beating for my comment. I sheepishly accept yours as well, turning yet another cheek.
#45, you’ve drawn me back. I do not have the clear understanding of Pharisees that you do, and I apologize for offending you and them. But the fact is they were rather conservative compared with the new ideas of the Lord; they opposed him and sought his end. My reference was to #35 who claimed that the conservative view is superior, and I was simply trying to illustrate that is not always the case. In fairness, #35 asked us not to take his overriding generalization the wrong way, but I don’t know what the right way is. I did not suggest (nor mean to suggest) that the Pharisees were a bunch of anti-intellectual obsessive compulsive ritual minutiae miners — those are your words, not mine. But you would know better than me.
As for the suggestion in #44 that those who study the professions are more task oriented, and therefore better suited to church leadership than those who study other disciplines, it is as narrow minded as the notion that those who study the professions can have no understanding of or appreciation for the humanities.
I cannot pretend to understand why so many are called from the professions to serve among the general authorities — I am not responsible for those calls, but in my stake we have bishops and branch presidents from every walk of life, including the un-college educated.
Thomas,
It was more “loosy-goosy” and “invented” with respect to reform Judaism that I was put off by. I guess I just think we should speak of other people’s religions more respectfully.
We both agree that 36 is off. We disagree that 37 is even further off.
No, you don’t understand what scholarship or intellectual life is at all.
st1305 (44)
Ha! This really doesn’t even make sense. You don’t think there are tasks to complete in scholarly fields?
Sadducees, they denied the literal ressurection.
The Pharisees accepted the resurrection.
That made me smile.
Fun that http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/07/what-is-an-intellectual/ has been inspired by this thread.
@ Stephen
I should send that to my Shakespeare professor at college. She would get a laugh at that. At any rate, you got a laugh from me
TT,
Again, go back to the definition of literary “preferring books to actual experience”. In other words, they are clueless about real world experiences. I was politely saying they are out of touch with reality. The dictionary seems to define what I am saying.
They do have tasks that I think Thomas accurately described “They torture Shakespeare until he confesses to being a radical feminist, or a pacifist, or whatever other manner of -ist the professor wants him to be. Seriously, modern “intellectual” life has been so thoroughly corrupted by the expressly antirationalist doctrine of postmodernism, that to call any but a remnant few of the people called “intellectuals” by that name is an abuse of the language”
Thomas, I am still laughing.
Well look at me piling on like a big jerk…that’s what you get for skimming comments. Sorry, Paul.
I want to comment on the title of the post, “No, really, why does Mormonism seem allergic to scholarship?”
At the MHA Conference in Missouri in May, I ate breakfast with Adam Jortner, a professor from Auburn University. He presented a paper called “Families in Ancient America: Or, What the Spaulding Story Really Tells Us.” He is not a Mormon. He told me he appreciated that Mormons don’t whitewash their history, like many other churches (such as Baptists) do. I was surprised, because so many on the bloggernacle claim the opposite. He said that Mormons are much more open about their history than other denominations.
Mr. Wikipedia (Thomas) and Mr. Dictionary (stfu1305),
Thanks for enlightening those of us who are out of touch with your imaginative reality.
Mormon Heretic: thanks for sharing that observation.
st1305′s awesome but immature little rant against the bookish just might collapse if someone were to trot out the “Founding Fathers”–you know, those monolithic, monopsychic deities whom are now venerated by the Glenn Beck types. They were bookish! They were leaders of men! They read Latin and they held public office! They memorized Plato! They commanded troops! PLATO!! TROOPS!!! Holy Sh*t!!!!
Oudenos,
They were also conservatives.
TT (“terribly touchy?), I know Wikipedia is often less than authoritative (although more so when dealing with contemporary issues, with history). Could you hop over to that page and let me know what aspects of the treatment there of the Pharisees is inaccurate?
Thomas,
I suppose you could say that I am “touchy” concerning your characterizations of contemporary scholars and intellectuals as degenerate versions of more superior cherry-picked individuals from generations past, victims of “groupthink,” unfamiliar with the “real world,” subject to “flights of fancy,” saying “there is more hope of a fool than of him,” “a white-knuckled semi-ignoramus who has mastered the insider’s jargon that is sufficient to count one as an expert in some dubiously rigorous specialty,” agreeing that the Pharisees are a legitimate comparison for modern intellectuals who too are “loosy-goosy” and “lax,” and then top it off with an accusation that they “torture Shakespeare until he confesses to being a radical feminist, or a pacifist, or whatever other manner of -ist the professor wants him to be,” suggesting that, “modern “intellectual” life has been so thoroughly corrupted by the expressly antirationalist doctrine of postmodernism, that to call any but a remnant few of the people called “intellectuals” by that name is an abuse of the language.”
I’m surprised that you would think that anyone could possibly react negatively to this barrage of insulting, condescending, mischaracterizations of contemporary scholarly life. It is clear that you think of yourself as more like a Renaissance man, somehow belonging to the more civilized class of intellectuals like Adams, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Henry and that has not been infected by tenure and the NYT, but have benefited from the “private sector.”
Though you may win the praise of being “well-versed,” you immediately confess that your lofty opinions which confirm the comparison of intellectuals to Pharisees is informed by Wikipedia and “people who’ve studied this.” I sincerely hope for your sake that those “people” who have “studied” are not in fact the very scholars and intellectuals you have so vigorously reminded of their rightful place, beneath you! Sheesh, you come dangerously close to supporting those who study things as a source of knowledge!!!
As for the Pharisees, my beef is not with Wikipedia per se (though it has its overstatements), it is with your interpretation of it. You should read it more closely.