Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons thread on MA&D

[_Mercury]

Uh, categorizing groups of belief is not a "postmodern" thing.

Actually it is.

[_EAllusion]

Uh, categorizing groups of belief is not a "postmodern" thing.

Actually it is.

Only in the same sense that postmodernists use words. Wait. You're using words. Omg! You're a postmodernist! Categorizing groups of belief is not anything inherently postmodernist, ergo you can't conclude postmodernism on the basis of it. What Shades is attempting to do is no different than making a distinction between neoconservatives and libertarians on the political right. And that's regardless of whether his categories are ultimately meaningful.

Postmodernity attempts to bunk metanarratives by claiming that there is no absolute truth.
Mormonism is an absolute truth. Thus, postmodernists would attempt to dissect the Mormon metanarrative into subgroupings and identities to show cracks in the metanarrative.

The oversimplification aside and assuming you meant debunk, the kind of epistemological relativism you are attempting to discuss here wouldn't be interested in debunking Mormonism as an "absolute truth" so much as already viewing it as true for its group but not outgroups. This would be the case regardless of whether Mormonism was one culture or 35 distinct subcultures. The categorization wouldn't matter.

Nice to see you had a fun time at Claremont with all the postmodernists though.

[_Gadianton]

why me, you're completely up in the night on your bit about postmodernism and Shades's argument.

Try running that argument by your Jim Faulconer, one of the guys Kerry Shirts interviewed a while back.

[_EAllusion]

Gad - I'm virtually positive I've seen Shades claim Chapel and Internet are two separate Churches on more than one occasion. I wouldn't be surprised if someone pulls out a quote to that effect for you.

[_Gadianton]

EA, I've responded to that on MAD. Shades's main page has the "two religions" in the title.

I will be mindful of this, and keep my eye out for a similar instance where DCP in a dry tone uses hyperbole in order to make a point.

Like I said over there, if Shades is willing to state on record that he believes the two in a very literal way make up two separate and distinct churches, such as the Mormon church and the Catholic church make up two separate and distinct churches or that the two practice fundamentally entirely different religions such as Mormonism and Buddhism are entirely different religions, then I will denounce his theory.

When DCP exaggerates to make points and uses hyperbole he often refuses to "dumb it down" -- I'm not going hold this against Shades.

[_why me]

Why me wrote:Postmodernism
A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality. For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.

Postmodernism is "post" because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody - a characterisitic of the so-called "modern" mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. As the philospher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism "cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself."

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengl ... -body.html

I think that this should do the trick.

[_Gadianton]

No, it won't.

You have no idea what you're talking about on this one.

You don't understand the article you just quoted.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

EA, I've responded to that on MAD. Shades's main page has the "two religions" in the title.

I will be mindful of this, and keep my eye out for a similar instance where DCP in a dry tone uses hyperbole in order to make a point.

Like I said over there, if Shades is willing to state on record that he believes the two in a very literal way make up two separate and distinct churches, such as the Mormon church and the Catholic church make up two separate and distinct churches or that the two practice fundamentally entirely different religions such as Mormonism and Buddhism are entirely different religions, then I will denounce his theory.

When DCP exaggerates to make points and uses hyperbole he often refuses to "dumb it down" -- I'm not going hold this against Shades.

Dry minded hyperbole is the calling card of Danny. I did not sense that Shades believes that they are separate religions. Any Bald Blob that took the time to listen to the interview could see that.

[Guest]

I think that this should do the trick.

?

So, in your view, if I were to argue that in America we can usefully classify people into political categories called "conservative" and "liberal" you would think I'd be engaging in postmodernism? Seriously? Or, let's take it further: Suppose I divide Protestantism up into Arminianism and Calvinism. Is that a pomo act?

I'm not sure what you think you are establishing with that quote, but again the mere act of identifying categories of belief doesn't imply endorsement of any form of epistemological relativism.

[_Gadianton]

I agree, Plumber. The apologists want to make the worst out of what he's saying, and Shades typically isn't willing to give up a good ribbing.

To me you can look at it like this:

Brant Gardner once claimed that if the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon is what it is, then it's probably false. In other words, if the typical "chapel Mormon" view is right, then Mormonism is wrong for Brant.

Likewise, evolution, or even Book of Mormon geography could be a deal breaker for a Chapel Mormon.

Hey -- the schisms of history have turned on seemingly even more trivial issues from the outside view.