Has your opinion of the LDS church

[sidewinder]

Dude,

Didn't you ever think that way before you evolved into high-minded postmodernism?  Bottom line: I think it is opportunistic to apply a fundamentalist label to critics of the Church without applying it in spades to the active membership.  You will disagree, and I will continue lampooning this line of argumentation where I see it from Juliann, CI, and the other postmodernist goons. 

Now isn't it telling that you immediately consider the opposite of fundamentalism to be post-modernism? This is actually a very common description of Mormon theology because of it's perceived universalism and openness to truth being found in other religion.

Being open to other religions having truth would hardly make Mormonism "postmodern." This is the kind of definition you'd find by fundamentalist christians who attack postmodernism though, ironically, as if it were nothing more than simple relativism or pluralism. I mean, I'm not the biggest fan of postmodernism, but there is more to it than that. In fact, "openness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with postmodernism. See Jean Baudrillard for instance, who views postmodernity as a monolithic globalization under the fiat of media.

Also, I'd like to point out that for those who think they've entirely unshackled themselves from modernism and have ascended above the "truth," you're supposed to spell it, "postmodernism," not "post-modernism." If you spell it "post-modernism" then everybody thinks you more or less see a continuation of modernism. Even Introvigne Massimo (or is it Massimo Introvigne?) who is somehwat ill-informed appears to adopt that convention rightly.

EAllusion,

Thank you for the Marsden reference which pits fundamentalism against modernism. Who could ever confuse the two?

BYU guy,

I hope you've studied this page:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

[KevinG]

Let me leave you with a popular Primary song, and you can tell me how it contributes to this single consistent message of prophetic fallibility:

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don

[Matt Andrews]

Dadof7, I would pay you a hundred dollars if you could get that verse in the primary songbook.

I'm not sure I agree that teaching about prophetic fallability is a tall order for the 4-10 year old crowd. I have a 4-year-old son, and he understands parental fallibility. That is, he understands that Mom and Dad aren't always right, but they do their best, and want to help him make good decisions.

(I do think 4-10 is a little young to be scaring young children into obedience to a particular group of men by referencing images of death and destruction, but I also understand that it makes more sense from the believers standpoint.)

[KevinG]

Dadof7, I would pay you a hundred dollars if you could get that verse in the primary songbook.

I'm not sure I agree that teaching about prophetic fallability is a tall order for the 4-10 year old crowd. I have a 4-year-old son, and he understands parental fallibility. That is, he understands that Mom and Dad aren't always right, but they do their best, and want to help him make good decisions.

(I do think 4-10 is a little young to be scaring young children into obedience to a particular group of men by referencing images of death and destruction, but I also understand that it makes more sense from the believers standpoint.)

Good for you on having your children understand you are human. It is in our homes where they will learn the principle of following righteous authority while still exercising their agency, and I agree that on the demonstration level it makes sense to start from a very young age.

However, it's hard to teach that as a symbolic concept at such a young age (written and song). I see your point on the scare tactic, but the song really does reflect common bible stories that they are already exposed too. I haven't seen too many kids traumatized by it. They will get more nuance when they are older, and the Church does not fail to teach agency and the humanity of prophets.

BTW- Thanks for the smile. I do enjoy changing the lyrics of the Primary song book on the fly, and my kids often giggle at my less than reverent interpretations. I'm probably going to get one of them in biiiiiig trouble in primary one day.

[juliann]

There are some other approaches, and I don't want to short shrift them, but for now, that's how the term is frequently used - generally with specific reference to conservative Protestants - including in most of quotes Juliann has a wonderful time continually misreading.

Oh, here we go. Again. When do we get to the part where you accuse me of having read no books on postmodernism while you have to find someone else's posts for sources?

Primary for the [fundamentalistic exmo] view is the affirmation that the Bible has as its ultimate source God himself, and that because God cannot lie or contradict himself, the Bible cannot contain any errors or inconsistencies.   

Paul J. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), ,p 50.

There are some other approaches, and I don't want to short shrift them,  but for now, that's how the term is frequently used - generally with specific reference to conservative Protestants - including in most of quotes Juliann has a wonderful time continually misreading.

Wake me when it's over. Again. One of the really fun games is the one where you guys have to call in back up so everybody can pretend that fundamentalism is only used to describe religious movements since like...terrorism? And then you can avoid the obvious. Take out "evangelical" and it fits like a glove. Let's try it!

This [fundamentalist] embrace of the Enlightenment at the turn of the eighteenth century still remains extraordinarily important nearly two centuries later because habits of mind that the [fundamentalist]  Enlightenment encouraged have continued to influence contemporary [fundamentalistic exmo] life.  Of those habits, the most important were a particular kind of commitment to objective truth and a particular

[juliann]

This [Postmodernist]

[Boy Named Sue]

Good for you on having your children understand you are human. It is in our homes where they will learn the principle of following righteous authority while still exercising their agency, and I agree that on the demonstration level it makes sense to start from a very young age.

However, it's hard to teach that as a symbolic concept at such a young age (written and song). I see your point on the scare tactic, but the song really does reflect common bible stories that they are already exposed too. I haven't seen too many kids traumatized by it. They will get more nuance when they are older, and the Church does not fail to teach agency and the humanity of prophets.

BTW- Thanks for the smile. I do enjoy changing the lyrics of the Primary song book on the fly, and my kids often giggle at my less than reverent interpretations. I'm probably going to get one of them in biiiiiig trouble in primary one day.

its not just that song. it is the beatdown that obedience is everything, including obedience to joseph smiths schtick.

as to your previous point that children can have spiritual experiences. i agree with that. but i dont agree that it is unique to mormondom.

my wifes and my last posts were in the primary. seeing the propaganda that is served up to children with the philosophy that much can be corrected or elaborated upon later in life was sickening to both of us and was probably a big factor in our decision to take a sabbatical from sabbathing with the mormons.

i taught nursery. and while i adored those kids, i felt like a knucklehead after one of the lessons i prepared as it was simple yet purely mythological. i think it was the creation. then when the noah story came along i felt like i had to either skip it as the kids will be reinforced that it really happened, or find a clever way to present. mind you, i love the noah story. we even have a son named noah. but the literal presentation is just plain silly for a child. so i took great liberties with the lesson and spent most of our class time with live animals that i brought to class.

this is but one example. there were priesthood lessons in sharing time that were offensive and really disturbed our young daughter. this was at a time when we were very committed to the message. her reaction was a wake up call to us. and we listened to the call and stopped taking our kids to primary.

[juliann]

Also, I'd like to point out that for those who think they've entirely unshackled themselves from modernism and have ascended above the "truth," you're supposed to spell it, "postmodernism," not "post-modernism." If you spell it "post-modernism" then everybody thinks you more or less see a continuation of modernism. Even Introvigne Massimo (or is it Massimo Introvigne?) who is somehwat ill-informed appears to adopt that convention rightly.

Oh, man...that hurt. If you get me about my sloppy typing and the way I don't get my contraction apostrophes in the right place I will probably dissolve into a postmodern post-modern depression. Do you have any idea how hilarious it is that you guys are still muttering about Introvigne in your sleep?

[KevinG]

its not just that song. it is the beatdown that obedience is everything, including obedience to joseph smiths schtick.

my wifes and my last posts were in the primary. seeing the propaganda that is served up to children with the philosophy that much can be corrected or elaborated upon later in life was sickening to both of us and was probably a big factor in our decision to take a sabbatical from sabbathing with the mormons.

this is but one example. there were priesthood lessons in sharing time that were offensive and really disturbed our young daughter.

Beatdown?

Priesthood lessons in sharing time?

No hyperbole here.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm impressed Daniel, this above paragraph is honest and straightforward.  I nothing more to say other than ... finally.

...and to ignore the next paragraph, the one that begins with "However..."

*yawn*

Hehe... and you ignored the whole of the exchange thus far where previously Daniel states the opposite, that there is no evidence that Joseph adhered to the Hemispheric Model.

I haven't contradicted myself. I've always said that Joseph Smith leaned toward a hemispheric understanding (particularly early on), that his ideas changed over time, that he doesn't seem to have been wedded to any particular model, that he never claimed revelation on Book of Mormon geography, that he felt free to speculate on the topic, and that, increasingly, he focused on what we today call Mesoamerica.

This permits me and others to speculate freely on the topic.

Don't attempt to saddle me with positions that I don't hold.

And stop insinuating that I've been dishonest.

[juliann]

its not just that song. it is the beatdown that obedience is everything, including obedience to joseph smiths schtick.

Now, sue....I just gotta laugh at that one. No obedience training in your home, eh?

seeing the propaganda that is served up to children with the philosophy that much can be corrected or elaborated upon later in life was sickening to both of us and was probably a big factor in our decision to take a sabbatical from sabbathing with the mormons.

Had you already taken them out of school...or did that come after this moment of enlightenment?

[juliann]

Dude,

Didn't you ever think that way before you evolved into high-minded postmodernism?

[Boy Named Sue]

its not just that song. it is the beatdown that obedience is everything, including obedience to joseph smiths schtick.

Now, sue....I just gotta laugh at that one. No obedience training in your home, eh?

seeing the propaganda that is served up to children with the philosophy that much can be corrected or elaborated upon later in life was sickening to both of us and was probably a big factor in our decision to take a sabbatical from sabbathing with the mormons.

Had you already taken them out of school...or did that come after this moment of enlightenment?

we have an obedience free home, just beatings. lets laugh together.

i would take my kids out of a school if i thought the school was harmful or teaching things that were false. so far that hasnt been an issue. but admittedly, i am just a simple sinning apostate so they should fit right in in a catholic school hat is abominable and whorish of the earth.

hey dad, the priesthood lesson was not a priesthood manual lesson about the wife of brigham young. it was the topic of the priesthood. and yes, it caused some anxiety for my daughter. are you disputing that too?

[KevinG]

If you mean "why do boys get the priesthood and I don't"

I've faced that with my daughters as well. My wife reminded them what I do with the priesthood, what she does as a mom and how they are complimentary and equal responsibilities.

I have some very independent and liberated young women in my house, and they even understand that boys and girls are different, and sometimes have different roles to play.

[Boy Named Sue]

I haven't contradicted myself. I've always said that Joseph Smith leaned toward a hemispheric understanding (particularly early on), that his ideas changed over time, that he doesn't seem to have been wedded to any particular model, that he never claimed revelation on Book of Mormon geography, that he felt free to speculate on the topic, and that, increasingly, he focused on what we today call Mesoamerica.

This permits me and others to speculate freely on the topic.

sheesh. it sure is complicated for something meant to be so enlightening. i feel free to speculate on the topic as well. and i speculate: fiction. very interesting fiction, but fiction none the less. now, can we get back to pinpointing the location of the 100 acre wood. what says farms on that?

[KevinG]

I haven't contradicted myself.  I've always said that Joseph Smith leaned toward a hemispheric understanding (particularly early on), that his ideas changed over time, that he doesn't seem to have been wedded to any particular model, that he never claimed revelation on Book of Mormon geography, that he felt free to speculate on the topic, and that, increasingly, he focused on what we today call Mesoamerica.

This permits me and others to speculate freely on the topic.

sheesh. it sure is complicated for something meant to be so enlightening. i feel free to speculate on the topic as well. and i speculate: fiction. very interesting fiction, but fiction none the less. now, can we get back to pinpointing the location of the 100 acre wood. what says farms on that?

Don't mess with Pooh!

[Boy Named Sue]

If you mean "why do boys get the priesthood and I don't"

I've faced that with my daughters as well.  My wife reminded them what I do with the priesthood, what she does as a mom and how they are complimentary and equal responsibilities.

I have some very independent and liberated young women in my house, and they even understand that boys and girls are different, and sometimes have different roles to play.

yes. and why is there inequality as she percieves it. the answers are not as simple as you insinuate.

i agree there are differences. this was a big factor in our selection of single sex schools. as you point out there are different roles. i find the church limits those. that is my experience.

congratulations on raising freethinking children. i hope to do the same. its a daunting task.

[KevinG]

I like to encourage them to keep an open mind. Just not so open their brains fall out on their shoes.

[E Allusion]

When do we get to the part where you accuse me of having read no books on postmodernism

For the second time, that was Sidewinder, not me. I pointed this out in that thread, and now I have to again. I really don't want to have to hunt down that thread too, but I'll quibble over this falsehood of yours if you want to press the point. That you're wrong is easily verifiable, and I will do so if you refuse to admit you are wrong.

Oh, here we go. Again...while you have to find someone else's posts for sources?

[Boy Named Sue]

post deleted

Off-topic posts will be deleted. Start a new thread to discuss Pooh.

[KevinG]

Sorry. I'm afraid I encouraged this rabbit trail.

[Daniel Peterson]

sheesh. it sure is complicated for something meant to be so enlightening.

The message of Christ's atonement and resurrection doesn't depend, for its value, upon whether a reader of the Bible can identify the precise location of Emmaus or not. Likewise, Book of Mormon geography isn't meant to be especially enlightening. Knowing whether the Jaredite city of Lib was once located at one set of geographical coordinates rather than another is of no particular theological or moral consequence.

i feel free to speculate on the topic as well. and i speculate: fiction. very interesting fiction, but fiction none the less.

Some speculations are better grounded and more cogent than others.

now, can we get back to pinpointing the location of the 100 acre wood. what says farms on that?

That comment is either an ignorant insult or merely inane. I'll choose to believe that it was the latter.

[The Dude]

This [Postmodernist]

[juliann]

Honestly, Juliann, one of the most annoying things is your sloppiness. You'll back up a classroom assertion with a handbook quote, but you don't even bother to keep track of your critics.

Well...sue me. You guys all sort of merge together in the same droning complaint. Mormon church bad! Prophet false! Followers mindless! History wrong!. It is the same principle that allows Murphy to hook up with fundies without a single one of you even blinking. Birds of a feather flock together. You are allied with the same people Metcalfe, Southerton and the other fundie video celebrities are allied with as long as you go to battle for them.

Just as long as somebody said it, somewhere, then you can use it as a strawman in debating these critics (and myself) who are not fundamentalistic.  Face the music.  This dance doesn't work when you aren't actually debating fundamentalists!

Then why are you trying so hard to Tango?

[The Dude]

Then why are you trying so hard to Tango?   

Tango? You are following my lead. I say you are sloppy:

Honestly, Juliann, one of the most annoying things is your sloppiness.  You'll back up a classroom assertion with a handbook quote, but you don't even bother to keep track of your critics.

And you do a sloppy dance:

Well...sue me.  You guys all sort of merge together in the same droning complaint.  Mormon church bad!  Prophet false!  Followers mindless! History wrong!.  It is the same principle that allows Murphy to hook up with fundies without a single one of you even blinking.  Birds of a feather flock together.  You are allied with the same people Metcalfe, Southerton and the other fundie video celebrities are allied with as long as you go to battle for them.