Gerald Bradford and the Last Crusade

[_Drifting]

Welcome back Droopy.
I'm glad your most recent break from the board is now over...

[_Bob Loblaw]

This is logically and conceptually self contradictory. Postmodernism, and what Leotard called "the postmodern condition,"

What did the ballet slippers say?

is that of the complete rejection of all meta-narratives,

Don't overstate it, Droopy. Postmodernism is distrustful of metanarratives. It doesn't reject them completely.

as well as any conception of "truth" as anything other than a sociological construction centered in a particular time and culture and serving particular ideological interests.

Patently untrue.

Postmodernism is utterly useless as a template with which to understand anything (save the cultural and psychological dynamics that created it) let alone the gospel, church, and its relation to the larger world.
Postmodernism is also logically self negating in its own right, so it cannot really serve as an epistemic or analytical tool at all, in the philosophically normative sense.

Them's big words, Droopy (the Roget's Palsy acting up?), but you clearly have only a perfunctory knowledge of postmodernism.

[_Kishkumen]

So do I. So does Daniel. So do most, if not all LDS scholars. You'd be interested, among my massive personal library, in the many books on religions, living and dead, other than my own. That, again, is not the point. Bradford did not have to destroy NMI/FARMS as originally conceived to follow his vision. Another wing or division of NMI would have worked just fine - unless one conceives of the original FARMS project as fundamenally illegitimate and therefore, in a sense "doesn't want to be seen with it."

Droopy, decide what it is you are arguing about and then formulate a coherent post on that issue. You are manufacturing issues and arguments just because you are pissed about the dismissal of Peterson. You want to call out Bradford as some kind of apostate, and, failing that, at least conclude that he is an incompetent for doing what he did. As usual, you are all zeal and no focus or direction aside from your usual ideological ranting.

Instead of thrashing about violently, looking for people to punch, listen for a change. I am not lauding the dissolution of FARMS. I simply disagree with your attempt to make Bradford out to be some apostate because he removed Daniel as editor of a journal. I also disagreed with polemics aimed at individual members of the LDS Church. And lots of faithful LDS people, including some apologists, do too.

FARMS has been doing precisely that since its inception. I've spent a significant portion of my adult life studying (among other things) other religions "from a perspective of understanding" and personal interest. I also have a bias and underlying privileged perspective - the restored gospel - and this has never interfered, in the slightest, in my interest in and study of other religions.

Yes, and for all you know, Bradford sees things the same way you do. You hope to manufacture disagreement based on little evidence in the interest of your online crusade against Bradford. We know what you are doing.

If you begin with the assumption that your way is the right way, and your education is dominated by partisan views without any thorough exposure to different methodologies and viewpoints, then your work will be of limited value as a result.

Nonsense. This is an assumption and preconception on your part, and nothing more. There is no necessary reason to believe that a bias or belief that something is right precludes scholarly study of other systems of belief one understands to be wrong or otherwise lacking in some manner.

LOL. You know that is not what I said. A copulative ("and") stipulates both conditions. One has to assume one is right and then fail to engage other viewpoints fairly in order for the conditions I proposed to pertain.

Scholarship is nothing more than the disciplined and methodical study of something and its accurate description to others.

Actually, that is not what scholarship is. Scholarship involves a lot more than description. It involves interpretation, and, ideally, the ability to interpret things fairly by trying to move beyond one's own biases, if only temporarily, to engage them, as much as possible, through the eyes of others. So, I may not be able actually to abandon my viewpoint as a 21st-century American in order to understand the Roman Empire, but I will endeavor to the best of my ability not to allow my knee-jerk assumptions as that person to cause me to misinterpret utterly that world.

And yes, it is important to acknowledge one's own biases, because they simply do exist as much as we may endeavor to see beyond them, but "description" is only part of the scholarly enterprise, and much of FARMS scholarship goes way beyond simple description as it seeks to contextualize the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day scripture in light of ancient and medieval traditions.

The problem only arises when one's bias causes one to misrepresent or characterize another religion for polemical purposes (one reason the Nag Hammadi manuscripts are so important), but that is a matter of intellectual honesty, personal integrity, and/or psychological temperament, not the existence of bias per se.

It seems to me that you don't acknowledge that your biases are as problematic as anyone else's. What you are trying to say in this passing reference to the Nag Hammadi texts is unclear. Clearly FARMS authors have misrepresented the books of their ideological opponents in order to wage war against viewpoints they opposed. So, I really don't see what your point is.

And now here comes a paragraph of polemical frothing on subjects upon which it is not at all clear to me that you know what your talking about, but which your authoritative tone would like to make appear so.

No, you just have no idea what I am talking about, so you don't have any basis to judge. You try to blame me for your own ignorance. Nice try.

While anyone trained in the above heavily theoretic and conjectural disciplines (which doesn't make them bad or unworthwhile, just, as with most of the humanities and social sciences, theory rich and data poor) may look at the origin of the Temple endowment that way, not being trained in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the Temple endowment itself renders these purely secular perspectives moot since - precisely - those who approach the gospel in such a narrow, naturalistic manner are not competent to judge the material with which they are working.

This is pure dipshittery. Any real scholar understands that there is no definitive take on any subject, which is OK, because scholarship isn't prophetic declaration. A real scholar welcomes different methodologies and perspectives applied to the topic he or she is passionate about. Of course, it would be illegitimate to conclude that Freemasonry provides the secret key to understanding the endowment, but it would be equally illegitimate to preclude the usefulness of examining the endowment in light of Freemasonic ritual and lore.

Your problem is that you assume, as a matter of reflex, that anyone who would take Freemasonry into account must discount the divine revelation behind the endowment. I offered Kerry Shirts as a clear counter-example of that assumed enemy. He is a faithful, endowed Mormon who believes that the endowment is of divine origin, and yet looks for any insight that can be gained through Freemasonry. I would like to think that you don't have a problem with that.

Hamblin approaches the Temple as both a scholar and one who has partaken of its ordinances and received a witness to their truth through the Holy Spirit. Bill Hamblin knows things about the origin of the Temple that a secular anthropologist can only infer and guess at based upon the surface phenomena within his intellectual frame of reference.

It isn't an "either or", Droopy. Kerry Shirts wouldn't treat it as an "either or". Hopefully, Hamblin isn't that stupid either. You may be, but then you really aren't a scholar of this kind.

That's the first time I've ever seen Shirts defended in this forum.

No, that is the first time you have cared to notice. I have spoken favorably of Kerry Shirts a number of times. You just weren't paying attention.

Ancient Egyptian ritual drama regarding the journey through mortality and the passage of the spirit into the afterworld are much closer, if you wish real parallels, as are the mysteries of Cyril. The problem is that both the Masonic (an apostate form, from an LDS perspective) and the Temple endowment (the true, revealed pattern) rituals have ancient origins, but a secular anthropologist - especially given the theoretical biases (privileged intellectual template) of that discipline, is only going to be capable of discerning a linear, cause and effect derivative relationship going no further than the 19th century. A fatal error, but only to be expected from a purely naturalist, secular perspective.

No, it isn't a "fatal error." It is an examination that is good as far as it goes. It will reach different conclusions from the LDS insider view, but then the outsider view is usually different. That doesn't make it "wrong." Maybe you find no value in it, but you should probably rethink your assumptions on that. Some anthropological scholarship that does not take LDS views into account might actually be enriching and enlightening to the insider. You are the loser when you dismiss such things out of hand.

[_Droopy]

Don't overstate it, Droopy. Postmodernism is distrustful of metanarratives. It doesn't reject them completely.

Which "postmodernism" do you mean? Yours, or someone elses?

as well as any conception of "truth" as anything other than a sociological construction centered in a particular time and culture and serving particular ideological interests.

Patently untrue

.

Not in all the reading I've done on the subject over the last decade or so.

Postmodernism is utterly useless as a template with which to understand anything (save the cultural and psychological dynamics that created it) let alone the gospel, church, and its relation to the larger world.
Postmodernism is also logically self negating in its own right, so it cannot really serve as an epistemic or analytical tool at all, in the philosophically normative sense.

Them's big words, Droopy (the Roget's Palsy acting up?), but you clearly have only a perfunctory knowledge of postmodernism.

Again, I've got to be careful, due to the general 7th to 8th grade reading and reading comprehension levels in this forum, as well as the abysmal public school educated attitudes and nostrums people here bring from both from their original K-12 mind washings to the living DSM manual that is the contemporary humanities and social sciences within academia, and the pop news media, with the level of sophistication I bring to any discourse.

I'm not going to change that (but then, I'm not going to be around here very much either), but I do understand the problems you face.

[_Racer]

I think Bradford is heading in the right direction here. In the past, the church has mostly had to fight off traditional Christian and Evangelical critics. Most apologetics are geared toward Christians. Mormon apologists can point to the Bible or other Christian practices and argue their points.

But what if their critical audience is more secular or atheistic? Pointing to Bible verses or using theological philosophies are the wrong weapons when dealing with these critics. New tactics will need to be employed to address these critics.

In the last 10 years the US has become more secular. Less people believe in God or if they do, its an internal belief that is not hampered down with some denomination's dogma or rules.

There is an appropriate shift in gears from defense against Protestant/ Evangelicals to defense against atheism and secularism.

[_Chap]

I'm not going to be around here very much

QFT

[_Kishkumen]

For those who don't want to wade through Droopy's gibberish:

Since I have no real comeback, please allow me to hold forth in flowery insults for a couple hundred words or so. I assure you that I relished every last moment of the composition process.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, decide what it is you...

I'm done with you, as you are not interested in serious, philosophically coherent debate, but only in flagellating and scourging the enemies writhing about within the dungeons of your own conscience.

Now, I must be going...

[_Kishkumen]

Translation from Droopyese-

Man, I have no idea what this guy is talking about. Rather than look stupid, or concede that he may have a point, I'll just insult him and leave in faux-triumph. That'll show'em! Hehehe....

[_Bob Loblaw]

Which "postmodernism" do you mean? Yours, or someone elses?

That's the question you should have asked before making your blanket statement. Some postmodernists do reject metanarrative, but it's not necessarily a "tenet" of postmodernism.

Not in all the reading I've done on the subject over the last decade or so.

There's a difference between believing that metanarrative only approaches truth and saying there is no truth out there. Postmodernism asserts the former, not the latter. IF you were so well read, you'd know that.

Again, I've got to be careful, due to the general 7th to 8th grade reading and reading comprehension levels in this forum, as well as the abysmal public school educated attitudes and nostrums people here bring from both from their original K-12 mind washings to the living DSM manual that is the contemporary humanities and social sciences within academia, and the pop news media, with the level of sophistication I bring to any discourse.

I'm not going to change that (but then, I'm not going to be around here very much either), but I do understand the problems you face.

I'd rather have an 8th-grade reading comprehension if your "advanced" reading skills are the alternative. That you can read books for ten years and not grasp the concepts of postmodernism is not something I want to duplicate. You have no clue about my background, but I know about yours. I've lurked for a long time on boards where you have posted (and even those you've been banned from).You seem to filter everything you read through an ideological filter; it makes sense to you, but it's not particularly interesting to the rest of us.