Since you framed the issue in sociolinguistics, Sam, I think the issue is still tougher than simply finding the right way of saying you are “agnostic” on an issue. Ray probably has a good point about people seeing commitment and overall testimony and then not getting to caught up in other issues of difference.

But simply in terms of language in use there are so many linguistic things that announce intellectual. (I do not use the phrase self-styled, because such things seem to me more a matter of social reality rather than self identification.) A change of phrasing may nuance a point and make it more acceptable, but it doesn’t change the social reality of the speaker, it seems to me. It may not trigger problems, but it does not mean the person has nuanced all the other aspects of their speech that announce intellectual.

That point aside, the gap covered by the phrase is still a gap, possibly developed because of the style or complexity of the person’s thought, generated by what they have read, studied, and the overall social world of intellectuals. Though covered, the gap itself denounces the intellectuality and separates one from others who do not have that training and social world. Humor and changes of phrase can minimize its impact, but the reality is still there.

In my response I am thinking of Julie Lindquist’s monograph on her being from the Chicago working class, going to graduate school, and then returning to work in a bar in order to study language use for her dissertation. Though on a somewhat different topic (in which class is a relevant issue) still I think it illustrates something useful for this conversation. Linquist argues the metapragmatics of language in academic life are sufficiently different from those of the place she was from as to make communication difficult between the two worlds. I think arguably something like that may be true in many Latter-day Saint worlds.

As JNS said in #29, I “try to find ways of expressing what might be slightly heterodox modes of faith in more orthodox ways.” At its heart, that is much more important, imho, than the academic level of the vocabulary I use.

That said, I certainly agree that there are discursive strains between conservative Mormon intellectuals and many other kinds of Mormons. I would offer the speculation that the strains are qualitatively different than they are for more liberal Mormon intellectuals, and I’d suggest that at least sometimes conservative Mormon intellectuals are viewed by other Mormon subgroups with a kind of awe that liberal intellectuals rarely receive.

As to who defines orthodoxy, I’m told that the 1st presidency and the twelve regard the defense of some kind of “doctrinal purity” as their central mission. I suppose they may be the definers-in-chief. Why would they undertake such a task? I plead ignorance.

But regarding the ideological dissembling, if that’s the term we want to use (I’m not sure I fully accept the implication that there’s dishonesty involved in not bearing one’s soul at all times), in my experience it often is quite effective, especially when it’s practiced through silence. This is why so many liberal Mormons are surprised to discover that they aren’t the only liberal Mormon in their ward…

I share your concerns about the practice, though. I’d love it if we were all able to fully express our faith and our doubts without rupturing Christian fellowship.

Even though members may be more likely to be middle and upper middle class, they have a different educational background, and often work or life experience, than intellectuals, whatever their doxic level.

Mario de Pillis would support you, in part, because he strongly argues–against the standard wisdom that intellectuals tend to be liberal in their Mormonism–that there are conservative intellectuals within Mormonism. But, in the way the term intellectual is generally used it would map more on the unorthodox than orthodox side of things, even if people engage in orthopraxis. I suspect, however, that even conservative intellectuals do not always find themselves at ease with the ordinary level of discourse and sometimes may even find themselves a bit distant from orthodoxy.

But, I always wonder who defines orthodoxy and why?

While in the real world situation of stakes and wards I certainly understand the need to diminish difference in order to get along, still I wonder ideologically and ethically why one should have to dissemble discursively. Though I dissemble lots still the issue troubles me.

I also suspect that, for the sociolinguistic reasons listed above, the dissembling often does not convince very many people. It may exist more for reasons of courtesy or politeness, than as a means a genuinely avoiding difference. But that is an empirical question and I have no evidence right now.

This has been a very interesting discussion. I have been concerned for a while that the church in the US is, in some ways, a rather elitist organization. I hadn’t really thought about the impact language has on that, but it is bound to be considerable. It is a shame, because the ones who can gain most from the Gospel are those who don’t have postgraduate, or maybe even high school, degrees.

And, no, I am not saying anyone here is an elitist. It is your own business whether you are or are not anyway. I am thinking much closer to home.

As I read the initial post and the subsequent discussion — a problematic indicator, to be sure, but one that at least motivated my earlier contribution to the conversation — Sam’s dilemma is less one of whether to try hiding his educational level and other class markers and more one of whether to try to find ways of expressing what might be slightly heterodox (or at least open to heterodoxy) modes of faith in more orthodox ways. That is, this may be at least as much about faith styles as about class signifiers. Although I think it’s fair to say that Sam’s personal faith style is profoundly class-marked…

I think the question should not be how do intellectuals modify themselves to fit in but how do you build a common community which includes lots of differences, among them a set of hypereducated people. Unfortunately, that problem is not one the intellectuals alone can solve.