Postmodern LDS apologists

[_Runtu]

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.

I might give more weight to Wade's statements about postmodernism if he showed at all that he has read the scholarship and understands it. So far, all I've seen is Wade's telling us that we don't understand postmodernism. Not particularly helpful, in my view.

I actually find Mormonism to be postmodern in some ways in that it rejects the authority of the text in favor of a more nebulous and fluid witness of the spirit. Joseph Smith's revision of his own scripture seems rather close to what Heidegger calls erasure. Just thinking off the top of my head, but there's that niggling little problem of Mormonism's claim that it owns absolute truth, which humans can and should approach and understand, which places it directly at odds with postmodernism.

[_wenglund]

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.

Yet another evasive post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Yet another evasive post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

LOL!!!

[_beastie]

I might give more weight to Wade's statements about postmodernism if he showed at all that he has read the scholarship and understands it. So far, all I've seen is Wade's telling us that we don't understand postmodernism. Not particularly helpful, in my view.

Not only is he telling us that we don't understand postmodernism without making the slightest attempt to demonstrate said lack of understanding, but he also accuses us of being diversionary when we resist his invitation to entirely derail the thread from its topic.

I suspect Wade is not capable of either demonstrating our lack of understanding of postmodernism or defending Ben's points, which is why he attempts to divert.

I actually find Mormonism to be postmodern in some ways in that it rejects the authority of the text in favor of a more nebulous and fluid witness of the spirit. Joseph Smith's revision of his own scripture seems rather close to what Heidegger calls erasure. Just thinking off the top of my head, but there's that niggling little problem of Mormonism's claim that it owns absolute truth, which humans can and should approach and understand, which places it directly at odds with postmodernism.

This has been my exact point to Ben on the Z thread, which you may find interesting. Certainly Joseph Smith demonstrated what could be interpreted as postmodernism when he demonstrated little regard for the content of previous revelations, and was quite willing to change revelation, teachings, and doctrines, without notice or concern. But this certainly does not reflect today's LDS church, and the problem still remains of the inherent contradiction between claiming the right to make authoritative, categoric "truth claims", which Joseph Smith certainly made, while adhering to postmodernism. Ben originally agreed that this contradiction existed, although later in the thread he seemed to change his mind.

[_beastie]

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.

First, if you are actually interested in what philosophical school of thought various posters may ascribe to, please start a thread on that topic. This thread is about the utilization of postmodernism in LSD apologia, and how well postmodernism correlates with Mormonism in general. You are attempting to derail it into an entirely different direction, and I suspect you actually have no interest at all in the diversionary topic, either. You not only attempt to derail with the challenge, but then further derail by commenting only on the refusal to follow your original derailment instead of addressing the substance of the thread.

by the way, which google searches are you referring to? I have primarily relied on two texts that I have read and own - Ian Hodder's "Reading the Past" and Dever's "What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?" Are you simply echoing Juliann's oft repeated charge, that she has made without providing evidence, that I don't really read these books and simply copy citations off the internet? This is one of the more bizarre diversionary tactics she has attempted, but I am not surprised that it appeals to you. You see, it doesn't require actually digesting and attempting to respond meaningfully to any points being made.

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.

Philosophies do not exist in a vacuum. They are applied to various disciplines. (which made Juliann's objection to my use of archaeologists' comments strange.) You seem to think that because the word "philosophy" is attached to a methodology, that means that criticism of the methodology is inappropriate. This is just plain strange. Is Juliann feeding you this, by chance? It sounds like her.

Dever, for example, is harshly critical of the application of the postmodern methodology to his particular field, archaeology. The reason I have unfairly devoted more time to archaeology is due to my interest in mesoamerica and Book of Mormon apologia. Now if I were really to engage in what Juliann and her parrot Wade accuse me of, I would go do some google searches on various other fields of study and simply quote them. Instead, I have relied largely on the field I have educated myself on.

Your comments make even less sense when the history of postmdernism demonstrates that it is a reaction against, and criticism of, a different philosophy, positivism.

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
.

Please, I invite you to answer the questions that Ben has so far left unanswered. I also invite you to give us your summary of my mistaken perceptions, and how Ben has attempted to correct them. No copying and pasting. Simply explain it to me yourself. Since you are interested, this should not be an onerous demand, and will actually be pertinent to the topic of the thread, in contrast to your previous comments.

[_wenglund]

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.

I haven't been following Juliann's use of it, so I can't say. But, speaking for myself, and what I surmize from the conversation between Ben and Beastie, it is not so much a defense of the faith as it is:

1. An indictment of those standing in judgement of our faith and/or an relative impeachment of the witnesses. What we are essentially suggesting is that the limited, relatively ignorant, and fallible human mind has its own challenges in accurately and fully understanding the finite and natural world, let alone the infinite and supernatural realm. In short, the seeming contradictions and supposed failings of the gospel may well be a function of faulty thinking and unwitting ignorance rather than a real issue with the Church.

2. The use of a specific man-made lense (i.e. our respective philosophical school of thought) to answer certain man-made questions that may be related to the divinely established Church.

3. The positing of one philosophical lense for other philosophical lenses, as a preferred, though still limited and fallible and relatively unsatisfactory (not having all the answers), mechanisms for viewing the world--including the spiritual aspects thereof.

In short, we have been participating, along with those who are antagonistic against our faith, for the purposes of fun and education, in mental excersises that have little if any bearing on the verity of the restored gospel of Christ or the reality of the natural world. Philosophical wranglings, while perhaps to some degree expanding to the way some people think, have contributed little to the betterment of mankind, nor improved the quality of life. The heart surgeon, the finacier, the farmer, the builder, the mother, the soldier, the educator, the public servant, etc., can each go admirably about their respective duties in feeding, clothing, housing, schooling, and healing humanity without giving a thought to, and even being oblivious to, much of the philosophical disputes engaged in throughout the ages. While we wrestle fruitlessly over the esoteric and valueless question of whether things can be known with absolute certainty or not, others are consoling the depressed, growing food to feed the starving, mending broken bones and torn flesh, building roads and houses, teaching pragmatic principles and techniques, and so on and so forth.

I hope this helps.

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.

First, if you are actually interested in what philosophical school of thought various posters may ascribe to, please start a thread on that topic. This thread is about the utilization of postmodernism in LSD apologia, and how well postmodernism correlates with Mormonism in general. You are attempting to derail it into an entirely different direction, and I suspect you actually have no interest at all in the diversionary topic, either. You not only attempt to derail with the challenge, but then further derail by commenting only on the refusal to follow your original derailment instead of addressing the substance of the thread.

Were my intent to embark on an indepth discussion of your philosophical school of thought (assuming you even have one), then you may have a point. I wasn't, and so you don't. I simply asked you to identify your school of thought so I could demonstrate how easy it is to find sharp criticism and discrediting of that school of thought. In other words, it was intended to explicate the meaninglessness of your positing criticism from one school of philosophical thought as a means of dismissing and discrediting another school of thought--which point is particularly relevant to your OP.

But, I can see that you are willing to go to extreme measures not to respond to my simple, relevant, and straightforward question, and so I won't press you further. I will simply leave you to your self-aggrandizing and self-congratulatory characterizing of your discussions with Ben and Juliann, and your rounds of back-slapping and high-fiving with Runtu and Scratch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Were my intent to embark on an indepth discussion of your philosophical school of thought (assuming you even have one), then you may have a point. I wasn't, and so you don't. I simply asked you to identify your school of thought so I could demonstrate how easy it is to find sharp criticism and discrediting of that school of thought. In other words, it was intended to explicate the meaninglessness of your positing criticism from one school of philosophical thought as a means of dismissing and discrediting another school of thought--which point is particularly relevant to your OP.

But, I can see that you are willing to go to extreme measures not to respond to my simple, relevant, and straightforward question, and so I won't press you further. I will simply leave you to your self-aggrandizing and self-congratulatory characterizing of your discussions with Ben and Juliann, and your rounds of back-slapping and high-fiving with Runtu and Scratch.

Of course you're not actually interested. You were trying to score a "point" without having to actually do the work behind the "point".

So the work is this: which google searches do you refer to?

[_Runtu]

Of course you're not actually interested. You were trying to score a "point" without having to actually do the work behind the "point".

So the work is this: which google searches do you refer to?

Again, I think this is a game for Wade; otherwise, why would he say that we are sharing high-fives? I was reading a leftist Mormon blog the other day, and I think they had some interesting things to say about how they reconcile Mormonism with postmodernism (specifically Levinas). I'm far less inclined to take someone seriously who admittedly has to google Levinas to figure out what we're talking about.

This is not a schoolyard game to me, and the nature of reality and truth to me are central to the claims of Mormonism. If I'm going to expend effort talking about it, I'll talk to someone who has some basis for discussing postmodernism. So far, Wade hasn't shown me anything more than a googled understanding of the theory.

[_moksha]

I don't really understand this postmodern apologetics controversy, and when that happens I invariably find I am not alone. Could one of you please explain it in simple terms that are not geared toward a biased point of view? Thank you.