Role of Neo or Progressive Apologetics within FairMormon

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

As a distinction from traditional FARMS style Mormon Apologetics, I don't care what you call it. It's very frustrating to explain because though I think everyone understands well what it means, everyone wants to argue over whether or not the label is accurate. Liberal as in Liberal Christian is a useful description but the word is too loaded from use in politics. Progressive is a common term but probably the least useful because it specifically has connotation to political issues like women's rights, racism, LGBT+ issues, etc. When that may be a part of "Neo Apologetics" it's not the main distinction. Neo Apologetics is a nice term, imho, because everyone knows what it is. But whenever the term comes up, most people want to be cute about it like you did, because they simply don't like the fact John Dehlin coined the term or whatever reason. 

No category defines a person exactly. Within categories there is variance. Across categories there is crossover. But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event

In other words the new apologetics is postmodern, while the old is based on 300 year old "Enlightenment" thinking which leads to things like the Scopes trial.

Essentially they're still back thinking that an idea like Evolution could destroy the Bible. 

The present-day version of that would be that if there are no plates the Mormon Paradigm is dead.

Though I disagree with Taves on many side issues,  she at least is arguing from a post-modern perspective. She understands full well that Mormonism is a paradigm not actually based in what people regard as history.

A way of life does not surrender to facts. 

We live in a sea of political correctness which is actually now a secular religion, with a new morality which is not based on anything historical or any facts.

Yet the old apologists simply cannot handle an approach to Mormonism which is based on it being a paradigm, an orthopraxis,  or a philosophy. They stand looking dumbfounded at an approach like that of Taves, and simply can't deal with it.

Times change yet their underlying philosophy is 300 years old.

So in a hundred years when the culture is fully postmodern,  and postmodernism is 200 years old, suddenly post-modernism will look pretty good.

Then they will only be 200 years behind the curve instead of three hundred years so that will be an advancement!

 That is if the culture doesn't squash Mormonism before we reach that point,  which is a distinct possibility. We are now competing with the religion of secular political correctness  at internet speed so things are quite different than they have been in the past.

Nowadays the culture changes almost daily it seems.

At any rate Mormonism is a philosophy, a paradigm, a way of envisioning the relationship between God and man.

The old apologists are still worried about whether or not evolution can destroy the Bible, or the lack of plates can destroy a philosophy. 

Yep in the world of philosophy , no one cares about the source of any philosophers ideas. The test of who they are are their writings.

The point is Joseph was a prophet.

And God directed his writings.

Whether or not there were plates is irrelevant to the philosophy. Whether or not there were Nephites does not affect the philosophy.

I personally believe there were  Nephites, but it still does not affect the philosophy. In Sunday school we study the Book of Mormon. What do we study? The relevance of the Book of Mormon in our daily lives.

The relevance of those lessons has nothing to do with the actual existence of Nephites any more than learning about the Prodigal Son requires the existence of a prodigal son.

Every family has their own Prodigal Son, and everyone knows full well there is no need for his name and address, or even evidence that this particular prodigal son existed.

If you are actually interested in the lessons of the Book of Mormon the history becomes irrelevant, just as the existence of The Prodigal Son becomes irrelevant.

I don't care if it's all historically true or it's all historically false.

It has no relevance to the philosophy.

It has no relevance to the approach of the relationship between God and man.

We have the most advanced interpretation of Christianity imaginable.

God has confirmed to me through mystical experience that this is the path I will take forever, and that my Dear Father wants me on it.

There is nothing else even close to this in the entire world of religion.

There seems to be  little comprehension of how wonderful Mormonism can be, and the strength of our position. If we approach it as a philosophy it is unassailable.

Go ahead.

Resume the squabbling.

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by mfbukowski
Auto mis-corrects

[jkwilliams]

38 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I had missed that article, and I will gladly revise my opinion based upon it. I don't know enough to check the math, but unless Gee or someone else can point out significant errors in this rebuttal, I will accept this as the most current and likely the most accurate position on the length of the Hor scroll. Thanks for the update!

[Late note]: I don't necessarily see this article as being the last word, though. It would be interesting to hear why Gee felt the assumptions about measurements aren't reliable. Cook, who quotes Gee, writes: "We needn’t fear that there may be 'some errors in it or in the assumptions upon which it is based.' Fundamentally, a scroll’s length is simply the sum of its windings." Apparently Gee feels differently, and it would be good to know why. Perhaps Gee will tells us some day. 

Maybe so. It is pretty clear that Gee made a major error in believing that Cook and Smith used a formula different from Hofmann’s. 

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I had missed that article, and I will gladly revise my opinion based upon it. I don't know enough to check the math, but unless Gee or someone else can point out significant errors in this rebuttal, I will accept this as the most current and likely the most accurate position on the length of the Hor scroll. Thanks for the update!

[Late note]: I don't necessarily see this article as being the last word, though. It would be interesting to hear why Gee felt the assumptions about measurements aren't reliable. Cook, who quotes Gee, writes: "We needn’t fear that there may be 'some errors in it or in the assumptions upon which it is based.' Fundamentally, a scroll’s length is simply the sum of its windings." Apparently Gee feels differently, and it would be good to know why. Perhaps Gee will tells us some day. 

I don't know. The math is pretty straightforward.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

As a distinction from traditional FARMS style Mormon Apologetics, I don't care what you call it. It's very frustrating to explain because though I think everyone understands well what it means, everyone wants to argue over whether or not the label is accurate. Liberal as in Liberal Christian is a useful description but the word is too loaded from use in politics. Progressive is a common term but probably the least useful because it specifically has connotation to political issues like women's rights, racism, LGBT+ issues, etc. When that may be a part of "Neo Apologetics" it's not the main distinction. Neo Apologetics is a nice term, imho, because everyone knows what it is. But whenever the term comes up, most people want to be cute about it like you did, because they simply don't like the fact John Dehlin coined the term or whatever reason. 

No category defines a person exactly. Within categories there is variance. Across categories there is crossover. But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event

You've been reading my mail.  🤨😀😊

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

As a distinction from traditional FARMS style Mormon Apologetics, I don't care what you call it. It's very frustrating to explain because though I think everyone understands well what it means, everyone wants to argue over whether or not the label is accurate. Liberal as in Liberal Christian is a useful description but the word is too loaded from use in politics. Progressive is a common term but probably the least useful because it specifically has connotation to political issues like women's rights, racism, LGBT+ issues, etc. When that may be a part of "Neo Apologetics" it's not the main distinction. Neo Apologetics is a nice term, imho, because everyone knows what it is. But whenever the term comes up, most people want to be cute about it like you did, because they simply don't like the fact John Dehlin coined the term or whatever reason. 

No category defines a person exactly. Within categories there is variance. Across categories there is crossover. But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event

Though I disagree with you on some points what I like about you is that your approach is postmodern.

You understand the limits of man-made linguistic categories, and see them for what they are, often simply semantic confusions.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In other words the new apologetics is postmodern, while the old is based on 300 year old "Enlightenment" thinking which leads to things like the Scopes trial.

I don't think that's accurate. For instance FARMS was well known for raising paradigm critiques - that goes well back into the 90's so long, long before neo-apologetics as a distinction. Even here Kevin Christensen has written a lot on that. While I personally think the paradigm/pomo connections are overstated, they were considered part of the traditional FARMS apologetics. To the point that many critics attacked them on that point. Personally I think they went a tad too far myself. (We should probably also distinguish between postmodernism and coherentism - I always took Kuhn more as the latter than the former. But how people marshal him often is more tied to pomo than he was.)

While I disagree with him in various ways, I do think John-Charles Duffy's paper on apologetics and postmodernism is relevant here. Damon Linker's discussion of it over at T&S was interesting as well. (Especially in the comments) I made a few comments back in my last blog. The best response is probably Joseph Spencer's over at Square Two a few years back.

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Though I disagree with Taves on many side issues,  she at least is arguing from a post-modern perspective. She understands full well that Mormonism is a paradigm not actually based in what people regard as history.

Is she? I thought she was largely taking some ideas out of cognitive science for how prophecy might work broadly speaking in a diverse set of religions. It didn't seem terribly pomo that I could see. I've only read her one book that mentions Mormons though and not her earlier work. But it seemed to be quite the opposite of what I take to be pomo stances. But really postmodernism has had a bad reputation since the excesses of the 90's particularly in English and Anthropology departments. I think even people adopting pomo like arguments typically refuse the label. (Understandably)

 

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event
• understanding of priesthood authority, ordinances, and "only true and living" church that does not correlate to LDS Church and doctrine as God's one, exclusively True church

Except, perhaps, for the last point, that pretty accurately sums up Nevo Apologetics too

Edited August 6, 2018 by Nevo

[churchistrue]

3 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Except, perhaps, for the last point, that pretty accurately sums up Nevo Apologetics too

We have a new name. I like it. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

We have a new name. I like it. 

I got mine long ago in the temple.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's accurate. For instance FARMS was well known for raising paradigm critiques - that goes well back into the 90's so long, long before neo-apologetics as a distinction. Even here Kevin Christensen has written a lot on that. While I personally think the paradigm/pomo connections are overstated, they were considered part of the traditional FARMS apologetics. To the point that many critics attacked them on that point. Personally I think they went a tad too far myself. (We should probably also distinguish between postmodernism and coherentism - I always took Kuhn more as the latter than the former. But how people marshal him often is more tied to pomo than he was.)

While I disagree with him in various ways, I do think John-Charles Duffy's paper on apologetics and postmodernism is relevant here. Damon Linker's discussion of it over at T&S was interesting as well. (Especially in the comments) I made a few comments back in my last blog. The best response is probably Joseph Spencer's over at Square Two a few years back.

Is she? I thought she was largely taking some ideas out of cognitive science for how prophecy might work broadly speaking in a diverse set of religions. It didn't seem terribly pomo that I could see. I've only read her one book that mentions Mormons though and not her earlier work. But it seemed to be quite the opposite of what I take to be pomo stances. But really postmodernism has had a bad reputation since the excesses of the 90's particularly in English and Anthropology departments. I think even people adopting pomo like arguments typically refuse the label. (Understandably)

 

Your first sentence encapsulates everything.

In this context "accuracy " is in the eye of the beholder.

You are a follower of Pierce.

The man has no coherent view of God.

You don't particularly like James. I love James.

I will stick with James, Dewey, Buber, Wittgentenstein, Derrida and many others over Pierce any day.

There is a reason Kevin it does not typically site philosophical positions here but refers everything to the Perry scheme.

If you really don't get the Perry Scheme you don't get the rest of it.

Thanks for the references I will check them out. I already saw your comments on t&s and I have no comments about them.

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's accurate. For instance FARMS was well known for raising paradigm critiques - that goes well back into the 90's so long, long before neo-apologetics as a distinction. Even here Kevin Christensen has written a lot on that. While I personally think the paradigm/pomo connections are overstated, they were considered part of the traditional FARMS apologetics. To the point that many critics attacked them on that point. Personally I think they went a tad too far myself. (We should probably also distinguish between postmodernism and coherentism - I always took Kuhn more as the latter than the former. But how people marshal him often is more tied to pomo than he was.)

While I disagree with him in various ways, I do think John-Charles Duffy's paper on apologetics and postmodernism is relevant here. Damon Linker's discussion of it over at T&S was interesting as well. (Especially in the comments) I made a few comments back in my last blog. The best response is probably Joseph Spencer's over at Square Two a few years back.

Is she? I thought she was largely taking some ideas out of cognitive science for how prophecy might work broadly speaking in a diverse set of religions. It didn't seem terribly pomo that I could see. I've only read her one book that mentions Mormons though and not her earlier work. But it seemed to be quite the opposite of what I take to be pomo stances. But really postmodernism has had a bad reputation since the excesses of the 90's particularly in English and Anthropology departments. I think even people adopting pomo like arguments typically refuse the label. (Understandably)

 

Clark, you really need to read stuff before you post it.

I completely agree with Joe. I can't use the quote function with my phone but this is what Joe said:

 I want here to argue that it is precisely postmodernism’s philosophical antifoundationalism that meshes well with orthodox Mormon thought, while it is precisely postmodernism’s concern for the marginalized that arguably does not mesh well with orthodox Mormonism.....

If that much is clear, how could one seriously claim that orthodox Mormonism meshes well with antifoundationalism—that is, with postmodern nihilism? Does Mormon theology not clearly throw its lot in with, say, Descartes (the proverbial father of modernity), attempting with him to break with every form of nihilism by discovering some indubitable foundation on which all other knowledge can be built? In the end, I think the answer to this question is negative. Mormonism—whatever its complicated relationship to the Enlightenment turns out to be—cannot be reconciled with the Cartesian project, which “discovered” an indubitable foundation for thought only in its assertion of an irremediably transcendent “idea of God.” Given orthodox Mormonism’s theological immanence, according to which even God is not transcendent, it seems impossible to reconcile the larger and essentially Cartesian project of modernity with Mormon theology. [28]

Edited August 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clark, you really need to read stuff before you post it.

I completely agree with Joe. I can't use the quote function with my phone but this is what Joe said:

 I want here to argue that it is precisely postmodernism’s philosophical antifoundationalism that meshes well with orthodox Mormon thought, while it is precisely postmodernism’s concern for the marginalized that arguably does not mesh well with orthodox Mormonism.....

If that much is clear, how could one seriously claim that orthodox Mormonism meshes well with antifoundationalism—that is, with postmodern nihilism? Does Mormon theology not clearly throw its lot in with, say, Descartes (the proverbial father of modernity), attempting with him to break with every form of nihilism by discovering some indubitable foundation on which all other knowledge can be built? In the end, I think the answer to this question is negative. Mormonism—whatever its complicated relationship to the Enlightenment turns out to be—cannot be reconciled with the Cartesian project, which “discovered” an indubitable foundation for thought only in its assertion of an irremediably transcendent “idea of God.” Given orthodox Mormonism’s theological immanence, according to which even God is not transcendent, it seems impossible to reconcile the larger and essentially Cartesian project of modernity with Mormon theology. [28]

This is precisely what I have been saying but using the word " postmodern" because we still do not have a word for what is post-postmodern.

Joe calls it New Modernism which works for me. Because it denies postmodern political correctness he sees it as another ethic which is not postmodern, replacing postmodern ethics.

And so he seems to give a name for what I have been talking about.

And so Joe continues:

Might it be that a strikingly non-postmodern perspectivism is actually what is at work in Mormon studies since the 1980s? Might it be, that is, that “faithful scholarship” represents not so much a popular but nonetheless illegitimate misappropriation of postmodern theory—theory that otherwise would be irreconcilable with orthodox Mormon theology—but instead a historiography very much in line with other philosophical and non-philosophical attempts to move beyond the modern/postmodern problematic without therefore reverting to a vague pre- or antimodernism? It seems to me necessary to recognize this as a real possibility, and I would like to provide at least one historical indication that it might make better sense of the story of Mormon scholarship since the 1980s than does Duffy’s account. 

 

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clark, you really need to read stuff before you post it.

Not quite sure of the critique here Mark. Could you perhaps explain a bit more why you think Joe's comment is problematic for my view? Edit: Just saw your latest post -- will comment on that a little later. I'm just not seeing it. While I think Joe goes a tad too far on the marginalized side - particularly with apologetics where I think traditional Mormon apologetic is fixated on what is marginal.

Your claim was that traditional apologetics (which I took you to mean the FARMS/Nibley crowd and now The Interpreter crowd) was enlightenment and not properly postmodern "which leads to things like the Scopes Trial." I'm just not seeing it.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You are a follower of Pierce.

The man has no coherent view of God.

You don't particularly like James. I love James.I will stick with James, Dewey, Buber, Wittgentenstein, Derrida and many others over Pierce any day.

I don't think I'd say I'm a follower of Peirce as there are definitely places I find him wrong. I'm also more than a little dubious of his basically neoplatonic foundational ontology. Certainly his conception of God isn't one I'd accept. But I'd also say it's wrong to say he has no coherent view of God. It seems pretty coherent even if not one I'd accept. To me that's simply because he hasn't had the religious experiences that a Mormon would take as foundational. 

What do you see as incoherent in his views?

As for James, I rather like him, however I object to how he changes the pragmatic maxim from a theory of meaning to a theory of truth. I also object to changing the concern from verifying something to accepting psychological effects as part of truth. The whole "true for me" aspect that he inconsistently embraces, especially relative to religion and drug trips. So in that regard I think Clifford is closer to Peirce "The Fixation of Belief" than James is. While I don't go as far in evidentialism as Clifford does, I also think we can't neglect evidence the way James sometimes does. Although again it's worth noting that Peirce's concern was a process that in the long run would tend to correct beliefs and not epistemology based upon information as held at any particular point in time.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I will stick with James, Dewey, Buber, Wittgentenstein, Derrida and many others over Pierce any day.

I'd probably claim Derrida. Again, I think that final interview at the end of Limited Inc is key to understanding Derrida. I also think that much of Derrida's différance just is Peirce's conception of the sign - particularly in his mature thought.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a reason Kevin it does not typically site philosophical positions here but refers everything to the Perry scheme.

If you really don't get the Perry Scheme you don't get the rest of it.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you fill that in a bit?  If this is the claim that Kevin adopts a relativist position closer to your own, doesn't that completely undermine you claim which was traditional apologetics are problematic? After all he was a prolific writer for FARMS in the classic apologist days. I'm not sure why you'd raise that when it seems to undermine what you're arguing for.

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While I agree that it would be difficult for someone who has a faith belief to be completely objective and not let that influence their scholarship, I think that is exactly what is required of someone like Gee.  You mentioned earlier that a belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet makes it rational for Gee to assume that Joseph was correct when he claimed he was translating the papyri.  I think for responsible scholarship to happen a person like Gee knowing their personal bias towards their faith, must be even more rigorous with respect to any scholarship around this topic to make sure he isn't just confirming his bias.  Bringing in outside voices to corroborate his findings would be another important step.  

But the reality is that the work he's doing is not for a broad audience, he's not attempting to publish it anywhere that it could be scrutinized by other scholars in the field.  He's clearly engaging in apologetics only, and that is a very different type of material.  Yet because of his credentials his apologetics carries authority that it shouldn't otherwise carry.  

You appear to be unaware that Gee regularly attends non-Mormon symposia in his field, and regularly publishes in non-Mormon books and journals.  Indeed, he was the editor for some years of a non-Mormon Egyptological journal which requires peer review.  As for his vast bibliography of publications in LDS books and journals, you seem completely unaware of the fulsome documentation he provides.  Gee does not make unsupported statements.  That does not make him infallible.  No scholar is.  But it does provide you the reader with sources which can be checked.  Those are the "outside voices" which you demand but refuse to acknowledge.

Confirmation bias works both ways:  The anti-Mormon insists that only his view is valid.  Why?  Confirmation bias perhaps?  In the world of John Stuart Mill, points of view are easily expressed, but are always subject to review by others.  I find it astonishing that anyone who has a POV different from the accepted norm (whatever that is), must immediately be condemned as exhibiting "confirmation bias."  Perhaps all arguments should be evaluated on their merits.  That is what scholarship does.

On the other hand, scholarship can be an annoying bother to those not willing to study and prepare themselves for actual scholarly discussion.  It is a disservice to all concerned to have the false view put forth that anyone and everyone is equally capable of engaging in scholarly discussion.  It just ain't so.  In Egyptology, uninformed opinions are valueless.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is precisely what I have been saying but using the word " postmodern" because we still do not have a word for what is post-postmodern.

Joe calls it New Modernism which works for me. Because it denies postmodern political correctness he sees it as another ethic which is not postmodern, replacing postmodern ethics.

And so he seems to give a name for what I have been talking about.

And so Joe continues:

Might it be that a strikingly non-postmodern perspectivism is actually what is at work in Mormon studies since the 1980s? Might it be, that is, that “faithful scholarship” represents not so much a popular but nonetheless illegitimate misappropriation of postmodern theory—theory that otherwise would be irreconcilable with orthodox Mormon theology—but instead a historiography very much in line with other philosophical and non-philosophical attempts to move beyond the modern/postmodern problematic without therefore reverting to a vague pre- or antimodernism? It seems to me necessary to recognize this as a real possibility, and I would like to provide at least one historical indication that it might make better sense of the story of Mormon scholarship since the 1980s than does Duffy’s account. 

Let me address this as this was something Joe, Adam Miller and myself discussed pretty heavily on lds-herm around the time he wrote that article. I think this quote might be getting at why we're talking past one an other. 

First off let me be clear that by postmodernism I think Joe is talking about the heavily anti-realist form of postmodernism that was popularized in English, Anthropology and other departments in the 90's. Again to be clear that type of postmodernism (which is often rather ignorant of Heidegger, Derrida, and other figures and their technical philosophy) is not something I'd embrace at all. So I agree with Joe's critique of it. I'd also note that Joe sees Duffy's account as "illegitimate misappropriation" of postmodernism. Further Joe is discussing Mormon Studies much more than FARMS apologetics - although they do intersect somewhat. I think that what Joe outlines - especially with his comments on perspectivism - is much more including both neo-apologetics and apologetics.

I do think it's right to see a kind of variance of postmodernism as more behind FARMS. Whether one calls that postmodernism or not depends upon whether one means that "received mess" of 90's English departments or the earlier more rigorous form when I even called myself a postmodernist. Put an other way, there's a possibility we are equivocating over what we mean by postmodernism.

Allow me to quote Joe's conclusion.

• Is it worthwhile to pursue the possibility of regarding Mormonism as an attempt to forge an alternative Enlightenment—an Enlightenment that fully recognizes the rigor of antifoundationalism while nonetheless refusing to dismiss the possibility that there are universally valid and eternally invariant truths? In the end, I think such a project may be immensely important for scholars dedicated to studying Mormon history. Whatever modernist or postmodernist resistance there may be to a strongly grounded perspectivist historiography, it must be confessed in full rigor that only a perspectivist history accounts for the historical phenomenon of Mormonism’s self-understanding. Perspectivism—even when it is cast as “faithful scholarship”—asks the historian to account not so much for the events to which the believer claims fidelity, but for the believer’s fidelity itself, for the way the believer’s fidelity to events (that may or may not have actually taken place) shapes history.

What Joe outlines here is Peirce. I'd also argue Derrida. Allow me to quote from Limited Inc. (146)

• For of course there is a "right track" [une 'bonne voie"], a better way, and let it be said in passing how surprised I have often been, how amused or discouraged, depending on my humor, by the use or abuse of the following argument: Since the deconstructionist (which is to say, isn't it, the skeptic-relativist-nihilist!) is supposed not to believe in truth, stability, or the unity of meaning, in intention or "meaning-to-say," how can he demand of us that we read him with pertinence, precision, rigor? How can he demand that his own text be interpreted correctly? How can he accuse anyone else of having misunder? stood, simplified, deformed it, etc.? In other words, how can he discuss, and discuss the reading of what he writes? The answer is simple enough: this definition of the deconstructionist is false (that's right: false, not true) and feeble; it supposes a bad (that's right: bad, not good) and feeble reading of numerous texts, first of all mine, which therefore must finally be read or reread. Then perhaps it will be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-for example, socio-political-institutional-but even beyond these determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy.

Now I don't want to get into a discussion of The Enlightenment as if that were a single unitary thing rather than just a broad gesture at something opposed to relativism as if postmodernism were essentially relativistic. I'd also add that Derrida certainly explicitly opposes Joe's reduction of postmodernism as "an ethical affirmation of justice as political equality." Or at least he severely questions the meaning of equality. (See his book Rogues although I'll admit it's been a long time since I read it last)

I think though the prime problem with how you read the paper is that Joe is typically discussing whether Mormonism is postmodernism not whether FARMS apologetics is a type of postmodernism. Those are different questions I think. One can think that FARMS, at times, adopts postmodernist arguments without thinking Mormonism itself is postmodern. Now as to the question of ethics and the marginalized, I'd probably put things different from Joe. I'd say that instead that any focus on the marginalized will itself eventually find itself back to the truths Mormonism espoused because those are the selection by greater forces - a kind of invariant truth that survives through grafts into new contexts. So I differ from Joe somewhat here, although that's because I think Joe is speaking about postmodernism as done in the 90's in which the marginalized leads to a kind of nihilism precisely because they weren't attending to the phenomena. (That is postmodernism was cut off from the experiential grounding that Derrida and Heidegger gave as they did a type of phenomenology) Because this type of postmoderism becomes a kind of nihilistic word mysticism cut off from what I'd call empirical reality, it becomes something less. It's the taking away of light and truth (D&C 93:38) rather than giving a place for it. As I read Derrida, he's all about giving place (khôra) so that truth can appear. (In that regard he's still a Heideggarian)

Turning back to Joe, what he opposes thus is a "illegitimate misappropriation of postmodern theory" and instead a "historiography very much in line with other philosophical and non-philosophical attempts to move beyond the modern/postmodern problematic." Is this postmodern? Well in one sense yes. Is it modern? In a sense yes. That's why it's moving beyond the problematic.

Edited August 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

As a distinction from traditional FARMS style Mormon Apologetics, I don't care what you call it. It's very frustrating to explain because though I think everyone understands well what it means, everyone wants to argue over whether or not the label is accurate. Liberal as in Liberal Christian is a useful description but the word is too loaded from use in politics. Progressive is a common term but probably the least useful because it specifically has connotation to political issues like women's rights, racism, LGBT+ issues, etc. When that may be a part of "Neo Apologetics" it's not the main distinction. Neo Apologetics is a nice term, imho, because everyone knows what it is. But whenever the term comes up, most people want to be cute about it like you did, because they simply don't like the fact John Dehlin coined the term or whatever reason. 

I have not heard the term "Neo Apologetic" before your mention of it in this thread, and don't know how Dehlin may have used it.  I don't dislike the term, and have no real concept of it -- have no idea what it means.  You seem to suggest that it is tantamount to liberal or progressive apologetics, but I am not clear on what those terms mean either.  The real problem is that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are supposed to be opposites, but cannot be shown to comport with any sort of reality.  That is, they are incoherent, emotional terms which do not describe actual content or practice.  If you could provide an example of each, that might be helpful.

My notion of how scholarship proceeds is based on a rigorous assemblage of facts and logic.  It must always be conditioned by the opinions of other scholars, and must always be backed by good documentation.  My average 3.9 gpa at UCLA should be seen in that context.

6 hours ago, churchistrue said:

No category defines a person exactly. Within categories there is variance. Across categories there is crossover. But generally speaking. Neo Apologists are more likely to:

• believe the BOM is inspired but non-historical
• rather than defend anachronisms in BOM and other scripture, to acknowledge them
• rather than defend certain issues related to polygamy, priesthood ban, Masonic elements in temple, or other historical issues, they are more likely to conceded these issues as growing pains for a valuable and good religion
• this style leads usually leads to a more pastoral approach to Apologetics and a more friendly relationship with critics, less preoccupied with fighting over different facts and getting bogged down in snarky attacks and comebacks
• a focus on the lived LDS experience which is true and beautiful
• a deference and commitment to Church leaders but a different view of prophets and revelation as a steward and holding authority to guide the church and receive revelation, but that revelation is considered more of a bottom up man's best understanding than a top down God's specific and clear instructions for man
• standard scientific and historical explanations for evolution, Noah's flood, dispersion of languages, etc is accepted
• First Vision is a valid visionary event and key to the restoration but likely the 1838 official account is embellished a bit and not accurate to the actual event
• understanding of priesthood authority, ordinances, and "only true and living" church that does not correlate to LDS Church and doctrine as God's one, exclusively True church

Nearly all of these points are faith-based instead of fact-based, accepting apriori opinions as normative -- even before a rigorous evaluation has been made.  Where is the merit-based professional evaluation in all that?  No need for scholarly evaluation of an assertion.  One's emotional mood is adequate to determine what is true and what is anachronistic. That has the advantage of shutting down scholarly debate, and all the difficulties that entails.  One need only adopt a "feel good" approach, which is what many religious denominations exist for -- to satisfy some particular need.  Indeed, that is the source of rampant  denominationalism.  Instead of submitting to scholarly reality, everybody must have his own way.  Which is fine for an Einstein, but most of the rest of us cannot stand alone against the wind.  We depend on the wider community of scholarship -- non-Mormon scholarship, with its "Gentile respectability" (Nibley).

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You appear to be unaware that Gee regularly attends non-Mormon symposia in his field, and regularly publishes in non-Mormon books and journals.  Indeed, he was the editor for some years of a non-Mormon Egyptological journal which requires peer review.  As for his vast bibliography of publications in LDS books and journals, you seem completely unaware of the fulsome documentation he provides.  Gee does not make unsupported statements.  That does not make him infallible.  No scholar is.  But it does provide you the reader with sources which can be checked.  Those are the "outside voices" which you demand but refuse to acknowledge.

Confirmation bias works both ways:  The anti-Mormon insists that only his view is valid.  Why?  Confirmation bias perhaps?  In the world of John Stuart Mill, points of view are easily expressed, but are always subject to review by others.  I find it astonishing that anyone who has a POV different from the accepted norm (whatever that is), must immediately be condemned as exhibiting "confirmation bias."  Perhaps all arguments should be evaluated on their merits.  That is what scholarship does.

On the other hand, scholarship can be an annoying bother to those not willing to study and prepare themselves for actual scholarly discussion.  It is a disservice to all concerned to have the false view put forth that anyone and everyone is equally capable of engaging in scholarly discussion.  It just ain't so.  In Egyptology, uninformed opinions are valueless.

But does he get input from non-Mormon peers on his BoA research, and would his arguments stand up to critical scrutiny from non-Mormon scholars?  

I'm not anti-Mormon, so that label doesn't work for me.  As a concerned and somewhat well informed Mormon, but not a scholar myself,  I'm critical of certain apologetic arguments that aren't intellectually rigorous.  It seems reasonable to warn against confirmation bias in these cases, as there is a track record for this kind of thinking within very insular groups that spend inordinate amounts of time debating issues inside a bubble that has no relevance or connection to the broader scholarly world.  This is where Mormon apologetics especially with the old guard often falters from my vantage point.  

I don't buy the criticisms by some apologists that the non-Mormons don't take their works seriously, and that this is the fault of the non-Mormons.  No, its the fault of crappy apologetic arguments.  Make reasonable arguments and write persuasively and you'll get the attention of non-Mormons who are also interested in Mormon studies.  This is the great realization of some leaders at the Maxwell Institute in recent years, but unfortunately, many others are still stuck in the past trying to defend their turf.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Allow me to quote Joe's conclusion.

• Is it worthwhile to pursue the possibility of regarding Mormonism as an attempt to forge an alternative Enlightenment—an Enlightenment that fully recognizes the rigor of antifoundationalism while nonetheless refusing to dismiss the possibility that there are universally valid and eternally invariant truths? In the end, I think such a project may be immensely important for scholars dedicated to studying Mormon history. Whatever modernist or postmodernist resistance there may be to a strongly grounded perspectivist historiography, it must be confessed in full rigor that only a perspectivist history accounts for the historical phenomenon of Mormonism’s self-understanding. Perspectivism—even when it is cast as “faithful scholarship”—asks the historian to account not so much for the events to which the believer claims fidelity, but for the believer’s fidelity itself, for the way the believer’s fidelity to events (that may or may not have actually taken place) shapes history.

 

Clark you have the ability to turn out a fire-hose of text in a short period and we have been over and over these same issues a hundred times- and I am not going to repeat it all yet again.   I don't have the time.

This conclusion Joe reaches is  precisely what I have been striving for and I think it can be done with perspectivism- with a full understanding of how paradigms work.  And I think Kevin sees it similarly.

If you have read my posts, I constantly affirm Orthopraxis and even bear testimony of the church while attacking literalism and historicism continually

When we look at Wittgensteinian language games- it's all there.  Truth exists within contexts and Mormonism is such a context.  I have said repeatedly that though nonsense to others, the statement "I know the church is true" can be seen as an absolute truth for a Mormon- within the context of Mormonism especially when uttered within a Sunday meeting for example.  Rorty affirms the same point of view in his anti-essentialism, and where I disagree with Rorty is precisely where Joe disagrees with what he calls "postmodern ethics" which IS "political correctness"

When a Mormon hears "I know the church is true" stated within the  community he understands "what is being said" when someone says that, and agrees that it makes perfect sense.

And I agree in the same context, or perspective 

This is perspectivist truth in action and resolves the post-modern problem Joe here addresses.  Within a context or paradigm, a given proposition, and yet in another context or perspective, it can be nonsense.

This is what people fail to understand.  And Joe sees this clearly as well.

And if you read the article it is clear that Joe is talking about TWO contexts for "postmodernism" - one is the anti-essentialist view which he endorses.  The other is the "ethical" portion of postmodernism which now might be characterized as what is today called "political correctness". That is MY characterization of what he describes and what he opposes.

Regarding my supposed opposition to FARMS or FAIR or Interpreter- that is absurd.

I was talking about the silly apologists one sees on this board who eschew modern science in deference to the Bible's version of pre-science.

Joe writes for Interpreter- and no he is not against Interpreter.  I write for Interpreter and hope they ask me back to do more in whatever aspect they see fit.  I am a member of FAIR and think they do a marvelous job- and fully support them.   I support Nibley's work .  I support any other scholar who understand's Joe's perspective as quoted in this article, and I know that Joe did not find this view magically on his own.  It is in the air of Mormonism.

Edited August 6, 2018 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

To suggest that Nibley did " crappy scholarship " is the height of .... (Searching for the proper word .... ) ( someone help me )

Nibley would be the first to say that his was not the last word on any topic, but if one hasn't read his discussions on The BoM and BoA  ,one is missing a lot of the 'first words' .

[Rich Hansen]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Clark you have the ability to turn out a fire-hose of text in a short period and we have been over and over these same issues a hundred times- and I am not going to repeat it all yet again.   I don't have the time.

This conclusion Joe reaches is  precisely what I have been striving for and I think it can be done with perspectivism- with a full understanding of how paradigms work.  And I think Kevin sees it similarly.

If you have read my posts, I constantly affirm Orthopraxis and even bear testimony of the church while attacking literalism and historicism continually

When we look at Wittgensteinian language games- it's all there.  Truth exists within contexts and Mormonism is such a context.  I have said repeatedly that though nonsense to others, the statement "I know the church is true" can be seen as an absolute truth for a Mormon- within the context of Mormonism especially when uttered within a Sunday meeting for example.  Rorty affirms the same point of view in his anti-essentialism, and where I disagree with Rorty is precisely where Joe disagrees with what he calls "postmodern ethics" which IS "political correctness"

When a Mormon hears "I know the church is true" stated within the  community he understands "what is being said" when someone says that, and agrees that it makes perfect sense.

And I agree in the same context, or perspective 

This is perspectivist truth in action and resolves the post-modern problem Joe here addresses.  Within a context or paradigm, a given proposition, and yet in another context or perspective, it can be nonsense.

This is what people fail to understand.  And Joe sees this clearly as well.

And if you read the article it is clear that Joe is talking about TWO contexts for "postmodernism" - one is the anti-essentialist view which he endorses.  The other is the "ethical" portion of postmodernism which now might be characterized as what is today called "political correctness". That is MY characterization of what he describes and what he opposes.

Regarding my supposed opposition to FARMS or FAIR or Interpreter- that is absurd.

I was talking about the silly apologists one sees on this board who eschew modern science in deference to the Bible's version of pre-science.

Joe writes for Interpreter- and no he is not against Interpreter.  I write for Interpreter and hope they ask me back to do more in whatever aspect they see fit.  I am a member of FAIR and think they do a marvelous job- and fully support them.   I support Nibley's work .  I support any other scholar who understand's Joe's perspective as quoted in this article, and I know that Joe did not find this view magically on his own.  It is in the air of Mormonism.

After reading a number of your posts, I am starting to wonder if you smuggle "Get Out Jail Free" cards into Monopoly games.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not quite sure what you're saying here. Could you fill that in a bit?  If this is the claim that Kevin adopts a relativist position closer to your own, doesn't that completely undermine you claim which was traditional apologetics are problematic? After all he was a prolific writer for FARMS in the classic apologist days. I'm not sure why you'd raise that when it seems to undermine what you're arguing for.

I want to make it perfectly that I disagree vehemently with these sentences- though I have already mentioned it in passing.

Kevin wisely avoids the issue, deferring to the Perry Scheme which clearly teaches "relative" points of view as being higher on the scale of "Intellectual and Ethical Development" than dualistic answers " engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities."

I have no idea what you mean by the "classic apologist days" or why you put him in that category since he has done VOLUMES of  important work since then.  Yes he has had a long career in Mormon Studies.

And in no way does that "undermine what I am arguing for".

What I am arguing for is a form of "perspectivism" which includes an understanding of Kuhn's view of paradigms.

How could you POSSIBLY think that being in favor of Kuhn "undermines my position"??

Yes I am opposed to Cartesian dualism implying the correspondence theory of truth- and apologists who affirm it

How could you possibly imagine that that "undermines" my position?

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

After reading a number of your posts, I am starting to wonder if you smuggle "Get Out Jail Free" cards into Monopoly games.

No I just understand logic and can see multiple paradigms at once.  People have trouble following that I guess and I am always trying to make it clearer.  But even I make mistakes. 

I would love to see an example of how I did that, because it sounds like a great idea

Go ahead and post two quotes which appear to be in conflict and I will be glad to show how they are not.

Please.

I promise to give you a card!  As a lawyer here in LA advertises, "Because people don't look good in handcuffs.  Unless you are into that sort of thing."

Incidentally are you the Rich Hansen I might know?? 

PM me if you like.....

Edited August 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I want to make it perfectly that I disagree vehemently with these sentences- though I have already mentioned it in passing.

Kevin wisely avoids the issue, deferring to the Perry Scheme which clearly teaches "relative" points of view as being higher on the scale of "Intellectual and Ethical Development" than dualistic answers " engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities."I have no idea what you mean by the "classic apologist days" or why you put him in that category since he has done VOLUMES of  important work since then.  Yes he has had a long career in Mormon Studies.

But again if you see that as postmodern then you're conceding the point under discussion. Recall the sentence I was objecting to was:

• In other words the new apologetics is postmodern, while the old is based on 300 year old "Enlightenment" thinking which leads to things like the Scopes trial.

If Kevin is part of the old apologetics then I'm not sure how you're not agreeing with me. Color me a bit confused here.

My ultimate point was just that old apologetics were fairly diverse. The new apologetics isn't really postmodernism against the old.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Regarding my supposed opposition to FARMS or FAIR or Interpreter- that is absurd.

I was talking about the silly apologists one sees on this board who eschew modern science in deference to the Bible's version of pre-science.

Joe writes for Interpreter- and no he is not against Interpreter.  I write for Interpreter and hope they ask me back to do more in whatever aspect they see fit.  I am a member of FAIR and think they do a marvelous job- and fully support them.   I support Nibley's work .  I support any other scholar who understand's Joe's perspective as quoted in this article, and I know that Joe did not find this view magically on his own.  It is in the air of Mormonism.

Umm. I never said you were opposed. I disputed  your claim that "the old is based on 300 year old enlightenment thinking." Which now you're even giving more evidence against.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Clark you have the ability to turn out a fire-hose of text in a short period and we have been over and over these same issues a hundred times- and I am not going to repeat it all yet again.   I don't have the time.

That's fine. I'm just explaining my position and the argument for it. I recognize you don't agree. 

Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But again if you see that as postmodern then you're conceding the point under discussion. Recall the sentence I was objecting to was:

• In other words the new apologetics is postmodern, while the old is based on 300 year old "Enlightenment" thinking which leads to things like the Scopes trial.

I have no clue why you keep bringing Kevin into the discussion. 

But regarding my horrible sentence above, here is what Joe says that I see as equivalent.

Quote

 

 I want here to argue that it is precisely postmodernism’s philosophical antifoundationalism that meshes well with orthodox Mormon thought, while it is precisely postmodernism’s concern for the marginalized that arguably does not mesh well with orthodox Mormonism.....

If that much is clear, how could one seriously claim that orthodox Mormonism meshes well with antifoundationalism—that is, with postmodern nihilism? Does Mormon theology not clearly throw its lot in with, say, Descartes (the proverbial father of modernity), attempting with him to break with every form of nihilism by discovering some indubitable foundation on which all other knowledge can be built? In the end, I think the answer to this question is negative. Mormonism—whatever its complicated relationship to the Enlightenment turns out to be—cannot be reconciled with the Cartesian project, which “discovered” an indubitable foundation for thought only in its assertion of an irremediably transcendent “idea of God.” Given orthodox Mormonism’s theological immanence, according to which even God is not transcendent, it seems impossible to reconcile the larger and essentially Cartesian project of modernity with Mormon theology. [28]

 

I will make it as simple as I can.

Cartesianism and the Enlightenment  leads to Scopes due to the correspondence theory of truth and its attendant dualism.  God is in the realm of transcendent Truth and Knowledge, in which "Things as They Are" reside. ("Indubitable Foundation)   Absolute knowledge of this world is possible because descriptions of it can correspond to the reality of "Things as They Are"- that indubitable foundation.

The Bible is therefore part of this indubitable foundation as the Word of God representing and corresponding to Things as they Are.

So if the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and evolution disagrees, there is no Indubitable Foundation.

Alma 32 does not view truth along those lines at all, neither does Section 93 which describes truth existing in "spheres"

These passages describe a truth which is perspectivist, and is consistent with anti-foundationalism.

So yes I agree with Joe.

Mormonism goes well with the antifoundationalism of postmodernism.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no clue why you keep bringing Kevin into the discussion. 

Because you said one type of apologetics was not postmodern and the new type was. Keven is an example of an apologist in the old type of apologetics (FARMS). That's the only reason I brought him up. Again, reread my comments. It was one sentence I was objecting to. The idea that old apologetics were Cartesian and new apologetics were postmodern. With old apologetics being FARMS/Interpret and new apologetics being the so-called neo-apologist movement.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Cartesianism and the Enlightenment  leads to Scopes due to the correspondence theory of truth and its attendant dualism.  God is in the realm of transcendent Truth and Knowledge, in which "Things as They Are" reside. ("Indubitable Foundation)   Absolute knowledge of this world is possible because descriptions of it can correspond to the reality of "Things as They Are"- that indubitable foundation.

The Bible is therefore part of this indubitable foundation as the Word of God representing and corresponding to Things as they Are.

So if the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and evolution disagrees, there is no Indubitable Foundation.

But that's not an issue of correspondence theory of truth. That's an issue of the exegesis of Genesis 1 & 2. One could easily hold to the correspondence theory and yet interpret Genesis 1 differently from this fundamentalist way. I'm really not following your logic here. You appear to be arguing that correspondence theory leads to religious fundamentalism but I don't see how that follows in the least. Heavens, most liberal Protestants in the early 20th century held to a correspondence theory of truth but didn't adopt fundamentalism.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32 does not view truth along those lines at all, neither does Section 93 which describes truth existing in "spheres"

These passages describe a truth which is perspectivist, and is consistent with anti-foundationalism.

So yes I agree with Joe.

Mormonism goes well with the antifoundationalism of postmodernism.  

Certainly I accept anti-foundationalism. However I don't see the problem with a Mormon being foundationalist - even if I don't know too many people who are. But I'm sure they're out there even though foundationalism isn't exactly a popular theory.

As you know I tend to see Alma 32 more in terms of the traditional Hebrew notions of truth although it also lines up with pragmatic readings.

D&C 93 is more difficult. I think it's obscure enough I wouldn't want to hinge an epistemology on it. I strongly suspect it's largely neoplatonic in outlook although it's hard to say how much of that is intended as content and how much is just the rhetoric used based upon Joseph's understanding. I just think D&C 93:30 can be read in so many ways I'd never want to hinge a doctrine on that particular verse.

What, after all is the sphere? Is it earth? Is it a mind or something like Heidegger's there in being-there (Dasein)? Is it just a place like Derrida's khôra? Or is it just sphere in the sense of a sphere of creation? - i.e. a world Or is it more about the descent of the soul through various spheres to it's final place in the soul? Hard to tell based upon D&C 93. Yet the answer to that has serious implications for how one uses D&C 93.

Edited August 7, 2018 by clarkgoble