I guess Mormon Intellectuals get a pass. Mormon Intellectuals can dabble in the philosophies of men. None other than Dan Peterson's "scholarly" website endorses it in a more than glowing review of a Terryl Givens book.

From the Abstract.
"In dealing with this intellectual “matter unorganized,” interpretation of the secular philosophy becomes the key. With the right interpretation, philosophies deemed “secular” or “godless” can be seen as helpful and even providentially provided by the Lord to help provide a philosophical grounding for a testimony instead of destroying it.."

From the body of review.

"Complicating the issue, Mormons are admonished to avoid “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture ”1 and to keep their beliefs scripturally based, avoiding “the mysteries” that do not “apply to their salvation.”

Thus conflict is inevitable. We all live in a word saturated with irreligious patterns of thought. Ultimately, even scripture comes to us written by a human hand within a cultural context with all the influences of that culture embedded in the prophet’s choice of words and vocabularies. One cannot fully understand the Old Testament, for example, without understanding much about the culture and language in which it was written. Separating the “philosophies of men” from scripture completely is probably an impossible task, yet certainly with the proper attitude and a sense of discernment, one can extract the universal spiritual lessons to be found in at least some of the cultural context. Still, since revelation is not complete, where does philosophy end and scriptural interpretation begin? The answer for any thinking Mormon is not an easy one to always discern."
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

So if you have "the proper attitude and a sense of discernment" you can extract universal spiritual lessons from the philosophies of men. No prophet needed.

"Separating the “philosophies of men” from scripture completely is probably an impossible task, yet certainly with the proper attitude and a sense of discernment, one can extract the universal spiritual lessons to be found in at least some of the cultural context. Still, since revelation is not complete, where does philosophy end and scriptural interpretation begin?"

And how can they even ask this question?

"...where does philosophy end and scriptural interpretation begin?"

Isn't it the job of the prophet and his co-but-lesser-prophets to do this kind of thing?

Seriously, I'm thinking Boyd K. Packer should have taken on Daniel Peterson more than Michael Quinn.

Excellent post.

Peterson is just being slightly more honest than most true believers. He's willing to admit that ancient prophets were wrong and that modern prophets are terrified of undermining their own authority by correcting them. But the Gospel's still true. And the Church is perfect, of course.

Good point at the end! Packer got the wrong target.

Peterson's prose is insufferable.

Human, providentially provided for

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good point at the end! Packer got the wrong
> target.

LOL! I know. I'm relishing that Peterson is the guy Packer should have been worried about.

The whole Mormon Intellectual thing is laughable. It is like they think they can be critical in a passive aggressive way. Packer probably hated the lot of them. He had a witch hunt and hangings of what he considered the worst of them when he pushed for The September 6 Excommunications.

But when you have a square peg trying to fit in a round hole all thinking people can do is try to work around their own leaders and doctrines.

It is patently obvious that people who think about their theology in Mormonism start down a path that probably leads them to philosophy in order to maintain their testimony.

The ending struck me as so funny. I actually did 'lol' when I came to it.


I once discussed the uses and abuses of using Derrida to shore up testimony. Derrida.

If one's testimony is intellectual, then one is one step from seeking recovery on a recovery board.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I once discussed the uses and abuses of using
> Derrida to shore up testimony. Derrida.

I would like to read those.

I do find it interesting that for Mormons no philosophies of men are needed, BUT for Mormon intellectuals they are their lifelines propping up their testimonies.

This Mormon put it very succinctly for the non-intellectual Mormons.

"First, I think Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism is quite foreign to the Mormon perspective. Mormons don't see themselves as thrown into a confusing world and choosing a leap of faith to escape despair. Instead, to Mormons the cosmos and the Plan of Salvation are comprehensible; we weren't thown into the world, we voted on it in the Great Council; and faith isn't a leap, it's the predictable and dependable result of applying Moroni's Promise. I know that's overly simplistic, but it captures the disconnect: what Kierkegaard thought were big issues aren't preceived as problems by an LDS reader or thinker."
http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/05/kirkegaard_and_.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2016 01:53PM by Elder Berry.

Anyone actually read the book reviewed by Peterson's "Interpretor"?

Review of Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014). 424 pp.

Petersons a terrible writer TERRIBLE