Postmodern LDS apologists

[_harmony]

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-

Actually, Wade, it will come as no surprise to anyone that the discussion is going the other way around. Ben is tying himself up in knots, even moreso than usual. He's now saying there are foundational claims of the LDS church can be changed. I'm sure that would come as a great surprise to my husband, whose faith is deeply embedded in those unchangable foundational claims. He's saying there was no apostacy; with no apostacy, there is no need for a restoration, as with no apostacy, there is no loss of priesthood.

I hate to be the one to tell you (or Ben), but there are foundational claims to the LDS church:

1. there was an apostacy in which the priesthood was taken from the earth.
2. Joseph restored the priesthood.

All of the restoration points to and emits from this event. Without the priesthood, there is no claim to authority. Without the claim to authority, there is no LDS church. All the woo-woo philosophies will never change that. Ben's out in left field. Trixie's making mincemeat of him.

[_beastie]

Wade,

You and Juliann remind me of each other so very much. Her approach is much the same as yours - avoid actually engaging in the messy points being discussed, and instead declare victory (regardless of material presented) and attack the critic.

You really ought to hook up in real life.

[_harmony]

You really ought to hook up in real life.

Man was not meant to be alone. But the Black Widow eats her mate.

edited to correct spelling

[_Ray A]

You really ought to hook up in real life.

Man was not meant to be alone. Tut the Black Widow eats her mate.

So does the praying mantis.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

You and Juliann remind me of each other so very much. Her approach is much the same as yours - avoid actually engaging in the messy points being discussed, and instead declare victory (regardless of material presented) and attack the critic.

You really ought to hook up in real life.

This is, as expected, an evasive response to my quiry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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-

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.

That you think it is a defense of Mormonism, merely reinforces what I suggest above (i.e. omong other things, that some people have not correctly grasped how or why Ben may apply postmodernism to his faith).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

This is, as expected, an evasive response to my quiry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, the only person fooled by your "queries" is yourself.

[_Runtu]

That you think it is a defense of Mormonism, merely reinforces what I suggest above (i.e. omong other things, that some people have not correctly grasped how or why Ben may apply postmodernism to his faith).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't been following Ben's use of it; I'm familiar with juliann's use of it, which is indeed a defense of her faith, one that undercuts the validity of that faith at the same time. Note that my comments above were directed at juliann's use of it. Remember not to put words in other people's mouths, Wade.

[_beastie]

Wade,

Here's what you can do to add substance to this dialogue. Instead of making generic observations about my inadequacy, please address specific statements of mine which demonstrate the lack of comprehension you cite. Then demonstrate how Ben rebutted my concerns. Then clarify for us whether or not you believe postmodernism is compatible with Mormonism and defend your answer.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

That you think it is a defense of Mormonism, merely reinforces what I suggest above (i.e. omong other things, that some people have not correctly grasped how or why Ben may apply postmodernism to his faith).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think anyone is arguing that Ben "may not apply pomo" to his faith. Rather, the argument is that applying it is a bad idea.