Postmodern LDS apologists

[_beastie]

by the way, for those who are interested in postmodern LDS apologetics, Ben McGuire is participating on a mirror thread I created on ZLMB about this issue.

[_Runtu]

by the way, for those who are interested in postmodern LDS apologetics, Ben McGuire is participating on a mirror thread I created on ZLMB about this issue.

I've always thought adopting the postmodern approach to Mormonismwas like the American saying in Vietnam: you have to destroy the village to protect it. Yeah, you can salvage some sort of belief, but what's left to believe in?

[_beastie]

I agree, Runtu. It seems inherently contradictory to adhere to postmodernism and than also adhere to the belief that the LDS church (or any individual or organization) has the right to make authoritative statements like "The LDS church is the only church with the true priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances in his name".

by the way, I went on the MAD board to see where Bond's identity was being discussed and Juliann is discussing the mirror thread on ZLMB I made on this topic, and displaying her normal "debating" techniques. (I put the word debating in quotes to signify that one must use postmodern deconstruction to figure out what the heck debating means when used in conjunction with Juliann's responses)

[_Runtu]

I agree, Runtu. It seems inherently contradictory to adhere to postmodernism and than also adhere to the belief that the LDS church (or any individual or organization) has the right to make authoritative statements like "The LDS church is the only church with the true priesthood of JC to perform saving ordinances in his name".

by the way, I went on the MAD board to see where Bond's identity was being discussed and Juliann is discussing the mirror thread on ZLMB I made on this topic, and displaying her normal "debating" techniques. (I put the word debating in quotes to signify that one must use postmodern deconstruction to figure out what the heck debating means when used in conjunction with Juliann's responses)

I've lost interest in Juliann's view of postmodernism. I know why she has taken that approach (in a rather undergraduate kind of way), and in the end, it's like talking to Wade. Their positions are identical, despite Juliann's being able to quote more than Wade can.

[_beastie]

You are so, so, so, so (add a million "so"s there) correct.

[_Dr. Shades]

I've always thought adopting the postmodern approach to Mormonismwas like the American saying in Vietnam: you have to destroy the village to protect it. Yeah, you can salvage some sort of belief, but what's left to believe in?

BRILLIANT, Runtu!

Time to update my signature line. . .

[_Mister Scratch]

I went and took a somewhat brief gander at the thread on Z, only to find that Ben is up to his usual tricks. Basically, what I see happening is an apologetic use of "systematic theology" as a sort of rhetorical crutch. Of course TBMs view the LDS Church as the One True Church. Of course TBMs belief the Prophet is the Lord's Mouthpiece. Of course TBMs view the Book of Mormon as the Truest Book Ever Written. I notice that Ben is trying to characterize antagonistic viewpoints as biased and subjective "master narratives", but I think he is distorting that phrase. A "master narrative," in postmodern criticism, is usually linked up to a power (in the Foucauldian sense) network of some kind: F. Jameson's "late capital," or Foucault's own "prison system," etc. But what is the LDS Church's "master narrative", and why should this receive shelter from postmodernist apologetic introspection? What is the Church's "power network"? (Figuring out what this is is especially damning to a postmodern apologetic approach, in my opinion, since "power" in religion is really just another, deeper "master narrative," quite unlike the master narratives erected in the name of man-made power structures. Thus, criticism of religious master narratives are quite senseless and lack the real-world implications and political relevance that postmodernism was developed to deal with in the first place.) I think that the bottom line is that adopting a postmodern stance vis-a-vis the Church is a bad idea, and that it undermines some of the basic things the Church is supposed to be and do.

[_beastie]

I had a real epiphany this morning. I think I finally understand postmodernists like Ben and Juliann.

The content of revelation is irrelevant in terms of the nature of the church. Only that revelation is, and continues, is relevant.

So really, you could postulate ANY change and postmodernists would not be able to argue with you. The church could declare that God has now revealed that since the entire plan of salvation depended on a person volunteering to be "satan", knowing that volunteering to do so would eternally divide him from his Heavenly Parents and eternal progress, and even deny him having a body. But since that person makes such a sacrifice for the rest of us, we should really be worshiping HIM instead.

If they're being consistent as postmodern Mormons, they would have to concede this is possible. The content doesn't matter. Only the fact that revelation is, and continues, matters.

I believe this philosophy is a reaction to learning details about church history that demonstrate how readily Joseph Smith changed revelations, and how little attached he seemed to be to the actual content of the revelations.

I do not believe this philosophy will be a threat to "anti Mormonism" however. If you follow my conversation with Ben on Z, you actually see that part of the justification of this theory depends on realistically accepting the accuracy of many "anti Mormon" charges. For example: did the LDS church really change its foundational teachings regarding polygamy? Did church leaders really once teach polygamy was necessary to exaltation? Most apologists go into the spin here and insist that prophets didn't really say that, or that it wasn't canonized, etc. But postmodern apologists will simply say "yes, and so?"

This will satisfy very few doubters.

[_wenglund]

I am curious to know what philisophical school of thought each of you ascribe to.

My reason for asking is so that I can then proceed to show just how easy it is to, as Beastie has done, do a Google search and find some sharp criticism and discrediting of that school of thought.

Those sufficiently knowledgeable of the many diverse and competing philosophies would be aware of this, and recognize how meaningless and invaluable it is in pluralistic philosophical discussions to, like Beastie has done, post qoutes from one philosophical paradigm in hopes of discrediting another.

I have read with interest the discussion Beastie has been having with Ben, and perhaps I am biased (though that is unlikely since I don't consider myself as a postmodernist, and I differ with Ben on certain points), but I don't think Beastie has a very good grasp on what postmodernism is, let alone how and why Ben may apply it to his faith, or for that matter even what the application of postmodernism to the LDS faith may supposedly mean for anti-Mormonism/antagonist against the Church. Ben seems to me to be spending much of his time schooling Beastie and correcting her mistaken perceptions. Surprise...surprise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I am curious to know what philisophical school of thought each of you ascribe to.

My reason for asking is so that I can then proceed to show just how easy it is to, as Beastie has done, do a Google search and find some sharp criticism and discrediting of that school of thought.

Those sufficiently knowledgeable of the many diverse and competing philosophies would be aware of this, and recognize how meaningless and invaluable it is in pluralistic philosophical discussions to, like Beastie has done, post qoutes from one philosophical paradigm in hopes of discrediting another.

I have read with interest the discussion Beastie has been having with Ben, and perhaps I am biased (though that is unlikely since I don't consider myself as a postmodernist, and I differ with Ben on certain points), but I don't think Beastie has a very good grasp on what postmodernism is, let alone how and why Ben may apply it to his faith, or for that matter even what the application of postmodernism to the LDS faith may supposedly mean for anti-Mormonism/antagonist against the Church. Ben seems to me to be spending much of his time schooling Beastie and correcting her mistaken perceptions. Surprise...surprise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I studied postmodernism in grad school, and beastie has as good an understanding of postmodern as anyone. If you understood what postmodern is and posits, you would be more than a little underwhelmed at its application to Mormonism. As I said before, I cannot imagine a worse defense of Mormonism than to apply a theory that states that reality is ultimately unreachable.