Comments on: Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah

By: Jon Adams

Jon Adams — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:46:12 +0000

Thanks for the invite and information, Joe. I’ll try to attend, so long as I don’t have to apply for a beard-permit. ;)

By: joespencer

joespencer — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:16:37 +0000

Thanks for the further info, Jon. If you can make it down to BYU on April 15th, apparently the day before the conference you mention, you can attend the conference on 2 Nephi 26-27 where you can speak with a number of folks interested in these kinds of questions. Jenny, George, and Joe (myself) are all pretty heavily invested in what sometimes goes by the name of postmodernism. (Kim, Julie, Heather, and Grant all seem less so; Sam will have to speak for himself.) Jim Faulconer will be in attendance at the conference, as will Robert Couch; both are very interested in these questions.

LDS-HERM might be something you’d be interested in, as well. Short for LDS-Hermeneutics, it is a list dedicated to discussions of (generally) post-Hegelian (i.e., Continental) philosophy (much of which falls under the rubric of postmodernism) in connection with LDS themes and especially scripture.

By: Jon Adams

Jon Adams — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:54:54 +0000

Everyone has been extraordinarily helpful! I really appreciate your thoughts and the links! If you think of other resources, keep up the suggestions.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:13:02 +0000

Yes, it was "Can Deconstruction Save the Day? 'Faithful Scholarship' and the Uses of Postmodernism." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 41, no. 1. He also did "Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics Is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy." Sunstone, May 2004, 22-55. I think he has some good points but tend to disagree with him overall. The biggest problem is one that a lot of critics of FAIR or FARMS make. Overlooking the wide diversity of approaches and figures in apologetics. (And also perhaps overexaggerating how apologetic apologetics are) There have been some interesting responses to Duffy although I don't believe all have been published. (I found several in my notes but I don't want to quote or share them since I'm not sure they were published and probably the versions I have are early versions of the papers) It also seems to me that Duffy takes postmodernism as entailing a kind of relativism where one needn't take stances which is a mistake I think. There's also a debate about the degree he represents figures thought correctly. Tom Alexander had an extended letter in a recent Dialog responding to Duffy as well accusing him of misreading both himself (Alexander) as well as Arrington. Midgley of course had the blow up at the MHA as well. That was where Duffy had a presentation on the same topic at the MHA last year with a response by Alan Goff (who has been a critic of what he calls historical positivism). I don't know if that's available anywhere though. I used to have a copy of Duffy's Dialog paper but I can't seem to find it anywhere. So I'll hold off commenting since I have at best a vague recollection of the details. (Anyone with a copy feel free to email it to me) There are a few responses online including a positive one at BCC, at JI (to a degree), and at FPR (where some probably correctly pointed out my LDS history reading is somewhat out of date - I've not been as interested in the subject the past 10 years) Anyway, I think the postmodernism of Mormon apologetics is vastly overstated. (And for the record I hate the term "postmodern" now as I think it obscures far more than it illuminates - generally when it appears now it means we are dealing with loose broad caricatures of actual positions)

By: smb

smb — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:30:32 +0000

apropos post-modernism, I seem to remember Charles-Duffy writing a piece for Dialogue sparring with FARMS-style apologia and the use of postmodernism, but that’s more a cultural history of LDS apologia than a philosophical treatment of postmodernism.

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:29:07 +0000

I should probably put up a few posts from my perspective on things. I’ve just been so busy the last few weeks that I’ve neglected the blog somewhat. (Other than the sideblog) When I have time I’ve been so tired that I’m afraid to post. (grin)

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:53:31 +0000

Unfortunately, the pdf collection of posts from our recent discussions in a postmodern vein about the immanence of grace contains only my own original contributions rather than all of the excellent discussion that ensued from them. But the entire discussions are available in the LDS-HERM archives.

A copy of the pdf can be found at the following address, if Jon or anyone else is interested:

http://iws.ccccd.edu/amiller/In%20Favor%20of%20Immanence.pdf

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:53:02 +0000

You might wish to contact Adam Miller as well. We just had an extended discussion on grace on LDS-Herm. Adam wrote the book Badiou, Marion and St Paul: Immanent Grace which isn't about Mormonism but more Badiou and Marion. (Badiou famously does a secular reading of Paul that many have found quite interesting) He's focused in on grace (in its broadest sense rather than the Mormon sense) as immanent and is after a flat ontology. The book's first chapter is about Derrida's notion of grace as a kind of novelty and why Adam doesn't like this. I know he put a big chunk of the LDS-Herm discussion into a zip file so he might be interested in sharing it. (The discussion ended up primarily being me taking Derrida's side against Adam's view - which was fun since I've not seriously engaged with Derrida in several years)