Has your opinion of the LDS church

[Nighthawke]

Why wouldn't it be original?  I don't google other peoples arguments to get ideas, nor do keep tabs on what FARMS has published before offer a book suggestion.  I could care less what FARMS has written, read Sagan's book for yourself.  Don't be lazy.

The argument Sagan put's forth is still no less relevant.  Or is referencing a Scientific method wielding, secularist thinking author akin to offering a shot of hemlock on this board?

I don't believe a month goes by without someone showing up on this Board with the suggestion that we read Sagan's "Demon Haunted World". This particular "Aha!" moment is getting pretty old.

[BYU Alterego]

"Well, it's pretty clear that Joseph leaned toward a hemispheric view, as did virtually everybody in the Church until roughly 1950 or so. (At that point, closer analysis of the geographically relevant data in the Book of Mormon text, which had commenced at least three decades earlier, began to take hold among academics like M. Wells Jakeman, Milton R. Hunter, Ross Christensen, Bruce Warren, and the young John Sorenson, and even with interested amateurs like John A. Widstoe, Howard. W. Hunter, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- leading to the establishment of the New World Archaeological Foundation [with its focus on the Chiapas Depression]. It was in the early 1950s, Elder Dallin Oaks says, that he first heard of the limited geographical approach as a student, and accepted it.)"

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

[BYU Alterego]

Nighthawke,

If you'll notice, I'm very new to FAIR. And on other forum's such as Jeff Lindsay's "Mormanity" blog, I think I've seen Sagan come up once.

[Nighthawke]

Nighthawke,

If you'll notice, I'm very new to FAIR. And on other forum's such as Jeff Lindsay's "Mormanity" blog, I think I've seen Sagan come up once.

This message board has an excellent search feature.

And if you Google "Demon Haunted World" + "FARMS Review" to see if they've reviewed the book it is the first hit at the top of the page. Can't miss it.

[Nighthawke]

"Well, it's pretty clear that Joseph leaned toward a hemispheric view, as did virtually everybody in the Church until roughly 1950 or so. (At that point, closer analysis of the geographically relevant data in the Book of Mormon text, which had commenced at least three decades earlier, began to take hold among academics like M. Wells Jakeman, Milton R. Hunter, Ross Christensen, Bruce Warren, and the young John Sorenson, and even with interested amateurs like John A. Widstoe, Howard. W. Hunter, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- leading to the establishment of the New World Archaeological Foundation [with its focus on the Chiapas Depression]. It was in the early 1950s, Elder Dallin Oaks says, that he first heard of the limited geographical approach as a student, and accepted it.)"

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

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

*yawn* Same old, same old. Plus ca change, plus c

[BYU Alterego]

"Well, it's pretty clear that Joseph leaned toward a hemispheric view, as did virtually everybody in the Church until roughly 1950 or so. (At that point, closer analysis of the geographically relevant data in the Book of Mormon text, which had commenced at least three decades earlier, began to take hold among academics like M. Wells Jakeman, Milton R. Hunter, Ross Christensen, Bruce Warren, and the young John Sorenson, and even with interested amateurs like John A. Widstoe, Howard. W. Hunter, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- leading to the establishment of the New World Archaeological Foundation [with its focus on the Chiapas Depression]. It was in the early 1950s, Elder Dallin Oaks says, that he first heard of the limited geographical approach as a student, and accepted it.)"

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 was only quoting what was relevant.

[Confidential Informant]

Take a breath man.  I'm not Metcalf,

Stop taking everything so seriously. I was making a joke! Metcalfe has no degrees to crow about. You at least graduated college. That counts for a little bit of something.

nor have I ever once mentioned the Temple ceremonies in this forum.  And rarely have anywhere for that matter.

My mistake. I was, apparently, confusing you with another poster. The fact is I can't even find the post I was referring to so it's moot. Nevertheless, it doesn't diminish my assertion that you are acting decidedly fundamentalistic.

Ambiguity is not the same as disparity first of all.  I tolerated ambiguity my whole life before I left the Church, though I was wrong to do so.  It's the disparity that's the real corrosive.

Funny, I've come expect disparity and ambiguity in both my private and personal life, but more on that in a second.

So yes, do I want limited ambiguity in what I hold to be "true?" Yes.

Then you have the same desire as every fundamentalist. The gospel was never meant to give you any sense of concreteness. Why do you think Paul told the Corinthians that we "see though a glass darkly." Is that a statement of concreteness or an acceptance of ambiguity and, yes, even disparity? It certainly is.

Do I want consistency in my system of belief at a higher standard than Mormonism provides? Yes.

And atheism and science provide you with that consistency?

Is belief up for personal interpretation?  Of course, I never said otherwise.  But too often apologists mischaracterize the facts to protect their beliefs, and that's different.

Examples, please, of how "aplogists" (note the nasty connotations) have "mischaracterized" the facts. Tell me, what facts has Dr. Peterson "mischaracterized" in his essay on Nephi's Ashera? What facts has John Clark "mischaracterized" in his work on archeology? What facts has Brant Gardner "mischaracterized" in his work with BofM anthropology and text? Can you provide a single example that supports this accusation?

My referring to the words of Joseph was actually to support my argument that Daniel's statement that there was no evidence that Joseph supported the Hemispheric model was wrong.

Actually, the article Dr. Peterson referred to (the Roper article) shows pretty conclusively that Smith wasn't married to any particular model and his views on the subject were quite pliable. It's your refusal to recognize this "fact" that could be viewed as a mischaracterization.

You have taken but one slice of that discussion and tried to make a fire where there is none.

Hardly. Even the Dill Pickel noted your fundamentalistic tendencies.

By the way it's sine qua non not "quo"

So now you're reduced to whining about typographical errors?

and this insistence on continuity that you mention is not just a fundamentalist trait.  Any journalist, attorney, Senator who often are in the business of getting at truth generally look for a consistent story, without need of revision. 

I'm an attorney -- a criminal attorney even -- and I know exactly what we look for. In fact, we do not look for the level of consistency that you seem to indicate. We get suspicious of a story that is repeated practically verbatim each time. We expect, and even desire, a certain level of inconsistency because that tends to be the hallmark of a truthful witness. We expect a victim's story to change with each telling in certain aspects. We expect her to enhance, embellish certain aspects in one telling while emphasizing completely different aspects in another. My father is a journalist and I can tell you he expects that to. You really want to get him curious? Have two people tell him the exact story verbatim, that'll get him interested. As to your example of a Senator. . . my experience with politicians tells me that they LOVE ambiguity and have no issue with discrepancy.

For you to call someone a "fundie" just because they want a straight story is like calling Bob Woodward Pat Robertson.

And for you to assert that just because someone tells the same story differently on different occassions to different audiences at different times the story itself is suspect is simply naive.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Or fundamentalistic ones.

C.I.

[Nighthawke]

"Well, it's pretty clear that Joseph leaned toward a hemispheric view, as did virtually everybody in the Church until roughly 1950 or so. (At that point, closer analysis of the geographically relevant data in the Book of Mormon text, which had commenced at least three decades earlier, began to take hold among academics like M. Wells Jakeman, Milton R. Hunter, Ross Christensen, Bruce Warren, and the young John Sorenson, and even with interested amateurs like John A. Widstoe, Howard. W. Hunter, and Thomas Stuart Ferguson -- leading to the establishment of the New World Archaeological Foundation [with its focus on the Chiapas Depression]. It was in the early 1950s, Elder Dallin Oaks says, that he first heard of the limited geographical approach as a student, and accepted it.)"

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 was only quoting what was relevant.

And you ignored Dan Peterson's next paragraph.

[edited by moderator]

Joseph manifestly felt quite free to speculate about geographical matters, and he was clearly excited when he heard about John Lloyd Stephens's classic 1841 book Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and the Yucatan.

- Daniel Peterson

p.s. Just so you know, since you're "new" to the board and all, editing Peterson's comments the way you did is against board rules.

[The Dude]

Are you familiar with Juliann's article Critics in Wonderland: Through the Liberal Looking Glass ?

No, I haven't. I'm sure I'll love it just like all of Juliann's material. I'll try not to get stung by any of her "specialistic" buzz-words.

Okay, I'll check it out. Maybe start a new thread with my praise/criticism of it (if I dare). This "you're a fundamentalist!" argument has been annoying me for a while now....

[Confidential Informant]

To CI: This fundamentalist criticism is really worn out. I remember Karen Armstrong once saying that fundamentalism is having a belief in a personal God. Ouch! How 'bout we all just admit that Fundamentalis/Liberal is a false dichotomy, just like Dr. Shades' Chapel/Internet Mormons, and there are in fact beliefs that YOU hold that appear as fundamentalism to people who don't hold them. It's about as useful, now, as calling Mormonism a "cult."

What I sense is that a lot of people who act life fundies don't like having that fact being pointed out to them. Remember, in most cases we aren't saying that the person actualy IS a fundie, we are claiming that they share certain traits with fundies. For some reason they really get upset by that point.

Others like to insist that Mormons act like fundies and get upset when we refuse to accede to their preconceived notions of what we are and how we act. Thus, you get articles from Metcalfe and Murphy who do nothing but quote past prophets, etc.

In this case, it's quite clear that BYU actually held several very fundie idea when he was a member and still continues to embrace them. It's a simply fact that anybody who approaches the LDS Church with such an attitude will inevitably be disappointed because no church and no person can stand up to such an unattainable standard as they set.

Read Julie's article. You'll like it.

C.I.

[The Dude]

Oh wait, I have seen that. <sigh> I think, unfortunately perhaps, this so-called fundamentalist way of believing is pervasive and natural in Mormonism. It comes from the way children grow up in the Church and the way we naturally try to apply a scientific view to religious views. If science can predict tomorrows weather with some accuracy, then a "true" prophet should be able to do it even better. Maybe that's unrealistic, but it's the message. 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. I have two science degrees so I guess it is my job.

[BYU Alterego]

To CI: This fundamentalist criticism is really worn out. I remember Karen Armstrong once saying that fundamentalism is having a belief in a personal God. Ouch! How 'bout we all just admit that Fundamentalis/Liberal is a false dichotomy, just like Dr. Shades' Chapel/Internet Mormons, and there are in fact beliefs that YOU hold that appear as fundamentalism to people who don't hold them. It's about as useful, now, as calling Mormonism a "cult."

What I sense is that a lot of people who act life fundies don't like having that fact being pointed out to them. Remember, in most cases we aren't saying that the person actualy IS a fundie, we are claiming that they share certain traits with fundies. For some reason they really get upset by that point.

Others like to insist that Mormons act like fundies and get upset when we refuse to accede to their preconceived notions of what we are and how we act. Thus, you get articles from Metcalfe and Murphy who do nothing but quote past prophets, etc.

In this case, it's quite clear that BYU actually held several very fundie idea when he was a member and still continues to embrace them. It's a simply fact that anybody who approaches the LDS Church with such an attitude will inevitably be disappointed because no church and no person can stand up to such an unattainable standard as they set.

Read Julie's article. You'll like it.

C.I.

CI,

A question, do you think I was particularly unique in my set of inappropriate fundamentalist beliefs?

Another question, if you agree that these misled traditions are held by any kind of signifigant number of members, than why havn't the brethren taken care to clarify?

I mean, don't you think that instead of adding "principle ancestors" to the introduction of the BOM in 1981, that the brethren would want to distance the membership from the Hemispheric idea? Or was McConkie all rogue in that case?

I just find it hard to believe that in a Church where how many earrings you wear, and what color of shirt you wear to sacrament meeting matter, that such a large misunderstanding wouldn't be clarified.

[juliann]

I tolerated ambiguity my whole life before I left the Church, though I was wrong to do so. 

Tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty is associated with maturity. There has been a movement away from this Enlightenment based worldviews for say, 200 or more years now? I can only measure from what I see in your posts but you seem to be stuck here with the rest of the Evangelicals:

In the generations following [Jonathan] Edwards, however, most evangelicals who took an interest in science, philosophy, history, politics and the arts adopted procedures of the Enlightenment by which to express their thought in these areas.

[Confidential Informant]

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

No. Never. I was taught early on that "a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such."

Moreover, one of my favorite Bible stories was Jonah and the whale (or fish or whatever) and that story, if nothing else, clearly highlights shortcomings and even complete failures of a prophet yet nothing about those traits disqualify him as a prophet.

If there is one single message that has been consistent since the Restoration it has been that prophets are not infallible. Joseph taught it over and over. Young taught it. In fact, I can't think of single prophet who didn't teach it. They were all concerned that members would take them at their word rather than seek independent confirmation for themselves. Maybe I was just the child of more progressive parents (though I doubt it) but the notion of an inerrant prophet is completely foreign to my thought processes and always has been.

Bottom line: I think it is opportunistic to apply a undamentalist label to critics of the Church without applying it in spades to the active membership.

Oh, but we do. The pews at church on Sunday are filled with people who hold fundamentalistic views to one degree or another. Several of the pro-LDS posters on this board hold those views. The question is how fiercly do they hold them? As Juliann has noted, lots of folks still hold to the HGM because that's what has been the traditional view, but in almost every case, when it gets explained to them, they shrug their shoulders and say, "sure, that makes sense."

You will disagree, and I will continue lampooning this line of argumentation where I see it from Juliann, CI, and the other postmodernist goons.  I have two science degrees so I guess it is my job. 

First, I do not disagree. Second, I bet you cannot define "postmodernism" any beter than anyone else can. Third, who you callin' a "goon?"

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

A question, do you think I was particularly unique in my set  of inappropriate fundamentalist beliefs?

Unique in holding those beliefs? Not at all. Unique in your refusal to review your own assumptions? Yes. As I noted, almost all of the Mormons I have know are more willing to review and adjust their preconceived assumptions. You weren't.

Another question, if you agree that these misled traditions are held by any kind of signifigant number of members, than why havn't the brethren taken care to clarify?

They have, time and time again. How many statements that we don't have an official BofM geography do you need? How many statements that prophets aren't inerrant do you require? If you want me to give a single consistent message from the Church, that one is it.

I mean, don't you think that instead of adding "principle ancestors" to the introduction of the BOM in 1981, that the brethren would want to distance the membership from the Hemispheric idea?  Or was McConkie all rogue in that case?

Ironically enough, it is my understanding that McConkie did muscle that particular language through. Others on the committee didn't want it and were uncomfortable with it. So what?

I just find it hard to believe that in a Church where how many earrings you wear, and what color of shirt you wear to sacrament meeting matter, that such a large misunderstanding wouldn't be clarified.

Is this really the best you can come up with? Comparing counsel from a prophet regarding an issue of modesty (and the color the shirt has, no my knoweldge, never been an issue. I"ve worn shirts of all colors and never had an issue) with a question of B of M geography? 'Cause if that's all you've got, you haven't got much more than mere rhetorical trickery.

C.I.

[juliann]

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.

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.

Well, here is the problem. If they are unable to shed their fundamentalistic worldview they are not likely to last long in a liberal leaning theology. Why do you think those who leave insist that we become what they needed us to be...and become enraged when we go "huh?".

You will disagree, and I will continue lampooning this line of argumentation where I see it from Juliann, CI, and the other postmodernist goons.

You may call me a postmodern goon as often and long as you like. It does describe some of my worldview and I wear my worldview on my sleeve. However, lampooning has its limits in that you eventually begin to look merely petulant if you don't start coming up with something more concrete. And you still have to come up with a lot better apologetics to explain why you are so against change in religion.

Because texts are clusters of signs that readers and writers continually interpret, texts are open-ended.

[juliann]

How 'bout we all just admit that Fundamentalis/Liberal is a false dichotomy, just like Dr. Shades' Chapel/Internet Mormons, and there are in fact beliefs that YOU hold that appear as fundamentalism to people who don't hold them.

Dr. Shade's very unscientifically done little survey is actually a very good tool for finding at risk Mormons. Since he did not get the responses he wanted from us on the first go round he changed the questions so that it actually is a pretty good measure of fundamentalistic Mormons who think like him and will soon be out the door.

It's about as useful, now, as calling Mormonism a "cult."

You are correct. Calling someone a "cult" is like waving a red flag and screaming "I'm a fundamentalist". Nevertheless....understanding the conservative/liberal spectrum is critical in any discussion of religion....just as it would be in a political discussion. We are coming at the topic with different expectations, different assumptions and different demands. I have been collecting books on fundamentalists/evangelicals just to understand why in the world anyone would even expect a religion that openly says it will get more revelation to remain stagnant. It becomes more clear when I understand the Enlightenment paradigm and the philosophical movements that have spun from it. We are in a post-modern age. Liberal theologies can survive it well. I can put up any standard definition of fundamentalist/conservative theology and liberal theology...Mormonism is not even conservative. That is why the fundies hate it. That I can just say "fundamentalistic" and get a reaction like showing garlic to a vampire kind of says the era of rational-thinking-will-solve-all-of-our-problems-by-showing-us-undefiled truth-so-we-won't-have-to-wonder-anymore is a little unpopular.

[Archon]

BYUalterego is getting dogpiled. It is not possible to respond to this many people and posts. Give him/her a chance to do it.

[E Allusion]

Fundamentalism is a loose term, though it is best characterized as reactionary religious movements that base one's understanding and interaction with the world around the authority of a religious source while militantly oppposing the influence of modernity on their surrounding culture and especially their religion. The reason it takes on this definition is due to the historical battle between the original fundamentalists and modernists in the early 20th century. The rise of the creationist movement is archtypical example of fundamentalism, and one that Marsden, Juliann's preferred source, goes on about extensively in his writing.

It can also refer to any religious splinter group that sees itself as getting back to the "basics" (or fundamentals) of its religion which have been abandoned by the broader religious community it is a part of. That's what is meant by "Mormon fundamentalists" in reference to the polygamist groups.

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. So, you can simply read those quotes if you are looking for footnotes from me, as I'm just paraphrasing them.

There are numerous traits that fundamentalists share that to greater and lesser extents clue an observer to of fundamentalism and take on legitimately take on secondary definitions of the word. For instance, the insistence that one's scriptures or other religious source are infallible or right despite overwhelming contradiction by modern secular scholarship is fundamentalist. Notice how that relates to the above defintion I offered. That's why insistence that the Earth is a few thousands of years old or that humans do not share common ancestory with other primates is fundamentalist. By the same token, the insistence one must appeal to "Divine Will" to have moral opinions in an effort to discredit the influence of secularly defended moral ideas on society is also a classic sign of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism creeps up in all sorts of contexts, but if you want to see who the fundamentalists are, look for religious beliefs and practices that have scant secular justification - maybe even are contradicted by general arc of modern science and ethical thought - and see how people respond and argue. Insistence on believing the Hemispheric model of the BoM is an accurate record of pre-Columbian America, despite good reason to think otherwise, would arguably be fundamentalist. Insisting a hemispheric reading of the BoM is most reasonable interpretation of the text is not. It is true they are reading the BoM in the same way a fundamentalist might, but in order to actually be fundamentalist, they'd have to insist that reading maps onto reality despite overwhelming reason to think otherwise.

Because fundamentalists often find themselves at odds with the progress of modern knowledge, and given the nature of their apologetics, the term has taken on a very negative connotation. It's heavily, heavily associated with irrational militancy, puritanical adherance to antiquated mores, ethically questionable scholarly practices, bad argumentation, etc. (Think Worldnetdaily). As a result it is a derogatory term in the eyes of many people, like myself. Personally, I think all Juliann uses it for is strawman argumentation and insult.

[Confidential Informant]

You keep accusing Juliann of misreading and misunderstanding Marsden. YOu really ought to back that up with some examples otherwise you're just blowing smoke [edited]

Also, why not address the substance of the arguent and show us why the behavior of someone like BYUalterego does not qualify as fundamentalistic. You always seem to ignore that very point while pontificating on a larger theme. Juliann and I aren't the only ones to pick up on it. Dill Pickle made the same observation as did Dr. Peterson. Now, maybe we are all just morons and you are indeed the smartest person in the room, but if that's the case you better start backing it up.

C.I.

Moderator: Tone it down.

[E Allusion]

Now isn't it telling that you immediately consider the opposite of fundamentalism to be post-modernism?

It is telling, but probably not in the way you think.

You, yes you, have a long history of specifically defining fundamentalism in ways that leaves every philosophical viewpoint that is not generally thought of as "postmodernist" as fundamentalist, probably because of how you read Massimo Introvigne (of all people). That's why you recieved this repsonse. Are you finally dropping this? W.V. Quine will be so pleased to find out he isn't a fundie.

This [Postmodernist]  is actually a very common description of Mormon theology

Really? What say you Daniel C. Peterson?

[Matt Andrews]

C.I. wrote:

How many statements that prophets aren't inerrant do you require? If you want me to give a single consistent message from the Church, that one is it.

Really? That one is it? Prophets not being inerrant is the example you think of first when considering topics with a consistent message from the Church?

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

[E Allusion]

You keep accusing Juliann of misreading and misunderstanding Marsden. YOu really ought to back that up with some examples otherwise you're just blowing smoke [edited]

I have. Repeatedly. Read the quotes. Read her readings of them. Read me explaining what is wrong with those readings. (Hear the phrase "affirming the consequent" come up over and over again.)

What else could you possibly want? The quotes are there. Her reading of them is wrong, plainly available for anyone else to see, and explained by me on numerous occasions. Juliann doesn't respond to my explanations of what's wrong with her reading. She justs reasserts her stance, makes the same error with another quote, and demands I deal with the evidence. What else am I supposed to do? I once listed, via Don, an extensive cross-section of quotes all defining fundamentalism in the way I just did, and she ignored it and continued her same pattern of quote, misread, and ignore.

I'm in quite a pickle here if you think I can do more.

If you want a defintion of fundamentalism in the historically relevant sense, take a simple Marsden quote.

Fundamentalists shared with the discontented intellectuals of the 1920's, if little else, a sense of the profound spiritual and cultural crisis of the 20th century. Unlike their more disillusioned contempories, however, they had very definite ideas of where things had gone wrong. Modernism and the theory of evolution, they were convinced, had caused a catastrophe by undermining the Biblical foundations of American civilization. "Modernism," President James M. Gray of the Moody Bible Institute stated flatly, "is a revolt against the God of Christianity.""

...

"During this period of its national prominence in the 1920's, fundamentalism is best defined in terms of these concerns. Briefly, it was militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicism. Fundamentalists were evangelical Christians, close to the traditions of the dominant American revivalist establishment of the 19th century, who in the twentieth century militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural exchanges that modernism endorsed... Fundamentalism was a loose, diverse, and changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to bring Christianity in line with modern thought"

(George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford University Press, 1980).

Uhhh, exactly?

What do you want Pent? I just briefly explained in some detail what is meant by the term fundamentalist. I referenced quotes to support myself. Namely the same one's Juliann has already kindly offered over and over again. Seems I'm set.

If all Juliann can do is stick to a blatantly irrational reading of a quote after someone points it out, that's a conversational impasse. Not uncoincidentally, the exact same problem occured when she hilariously misread what can be concluded from a study when she was trying to attack moderate drinking. She seems to be under the impression that using footnotes, regardless of whether they actually support your point, means you are engaging in substantive debate. It's like trying to play chess with a 4 year old who insists on moving the pieces any which way she wants.

There's not much I can do.

Juliann, the horsey doesn't move like that.

you better start backing it up.

I am. I did. To wit:

Insistence on believing the Hemispheric model of the BoM is an accurate record of pre-Columbian America, despite good reason to think otherwise, would arguably be fundamentalist [see above defintion]. Insisting a hemispheric reading of the BoM is most reasonable interpretation of the text is not. It is true they are reading the BoM in the same way a fundamentalist might, but in order to actually be fundamentalist, they'd have to insist that reading maps onto reality despite overwhelming reason to think otherwise.

Are you going to employ the anti-7of9 strategy on me and just keep insisting otherwise until people believe you?

And you aren't backing up squat, you big fat hypocrite. You're just vaguely lobbing accusations of fundamentalism at people and erecting strawmen in the form of declaring a who argues a particular intepretation of the BoM text you don't agree with must be an "inerrantist". At least I defined fundamentalism in a coherant way that matches scholarly and general uses and attempted to show when it would and wouldn't be appropriate to use it to refer to someone who reads the hemispheric model from the BoM. Talk about throwing pointy, pointy rocks while living in glassy, glassy houses.

Now, with that, I'll leave you to go write some anti-gay opinions where you quote Jeffery Satinover. Or maybe you can explain that without theism there is no basis for morality and mock secular humanism. Because you're such a hardcore anti-fundie.

[The Dude]

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.

Very common? Maybe it's becoming such at your institution. I think it's just your spin on Mormon theology.

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.

Well, here is the problem. If they are unable to shed their fundamentalistic worldview they are not likely to last long in a liberal leaning theology. Why do you think those who leave insist that we become what they needed us to be...and become enraged when we go "huh?".

Maybe they become enraged when YOU go "huh?" You are all wound up to jump on whoever dares to say what Mormons generally believe, and your response almost without exception involves an assertion about what critics generally believe. Or what you need them to believe in order for your label to stick.

You will disagree, and I will continue lampooning this line of argumentation where I see it from Juliann, CI, and the other postmodernist goons.

You may call me a postmodern goon as often and long as you like. It does describe some of my worldview and I wear my worldview on my sleeve. However, lampooning has its limits in that you eventually begin to look merely petulant if you don't start coming up with something more concrete. And you still have to come up with a lot better apologetics to explain why you are so against change in religion.

You once told me to go ahead and ignore your generalizations about critics if they don't apply to me. "If the shoe doesn't fit..." Well this one doesn't. What gives you the idea that I am against change in religion? You are confusing me with that sterotypical critic in your head (and in your article). You know, the one built of straw.

I have two science degrees so I guess it is my job.

[The Dude]

You will disagree, and I will continue lampooning this line of argumentation where I see it from Juliann, CI, and the other postmodernist goons.