One reference from the recent thread at Times and Seasons on Mormon postmodernism was to a review of the FARMS/Signature battles of the 1990's from a non-Mormon perspective. I managed to find the paper online. It is The Book of Mormon Wars: A Non-Mormon Perspective" by Massimo Introvigne. What was interesting in the paper was that Introvigne was one of the first to note that "the liberal camp appears deeply rooted in the Enlightenment paradigm, while the orthodox (but not fundamentalist) position often uses postmodernist arguments, claiming that absolute objectivity is a 'noble dream' never achieved nor obtainable in historical studies." He also seems to be one of the first to really emphasize that orthodox Mormonism seemed tied, especially via apologetics, to various postmodern perspectives.
Now on one hand I'm fairly sympathetic to his position. Historically Evangelicalism and American Christian fundamentalism were quite closely tied in with Enlightenment science and the objectivism inherent in it. While ripples started to separate the two with Evolution and geology, the basic hermeneutics of the Enlightenment were quite closely developed wiht Protestant hermeneutics. The break really took place at the beginning of the 20th century - although clearly the seeds of the divide were quite earlier.
I think one can push this much too far though. Unless one gets into the nuances and differences of how science and history developed in their classical Enlightenment fashion from how Protestantism and theology developed, one is bound to overgeneralize. Still one must acknowledge that "conservative" Christianity has rejected most critiques of the Enlightenment. For those fundamentalists who see problems in science, it appears that science is simply rejected rather than questioning the philosophical premises of fundamentalism or 19th century science.
Still, Mormonism, as I've mentioned, doesn't really adopt postmodernism. Even when postmodern themes are invoked, I think it is more a concern about the limits of systematic philosophy (and by extension theology) as well as the question of transcendence in various guises.
What is more interesting is perhaps the place of the most notable Mormon critics. These people are typically former Mormons and I think many do adopt many aspects of the Enlightenment project. So I probably am quite sympathetic to Introvigne's thesis. Where I differ is the idea that there is a large divide between the Mormons and critics of Mormonism on this point.
What really is at rest is not objective scholarship. Rather the issue is what is the best way to interpret evidence. I think both those who are "cast" into the Enlightenment camp and those "cast" into the postmodern camp agree that limited information produces tentative conclusions. Where they differ isn't on "metanarratives" or "objectivity" but simply what evidence ought to be included (i.e. spiritual evidence) and what counts as "likely" beliefs. Beyond that I think both sides are remarkably similar, all appeals to Kuhn notwithstanding...
The real issue is whether we ought to take things like the Book of Mormon seriously when the only evidence for it is fairly weak and open to other readings. Further the debate about what is mere coincidence and what is a significant parallel is debated by both sides in remarkably similar fashions. When is a parallel to 19th century folk traditions a valid parallel and when is a parallel to anceint mideast practice a valid parallel? What is remarkable isn't the difference in methadology but the similarities. Indeed one need not read much Michael Quinn to see the deep influence of Hugh Nibley in his style.
Further I think even most FARMS people would agree that it is revelation which provides the basis for "burden of proof." Without their spiritual experiences they too would probably cast aside all the claims about Book of Mormon origins. It is that burden of proof though that seems outside the realm of scholarship and which dramatically does affect how the debate rages.
What I worry about is that the real issue is the role of the Holy Ghost. Casting the debate into issue of postmodernism seems quite beside the point. Certainly one can write without regard to questions of truth. But English departments have been doing that for quite some time - long before the term postmodernism arose. And certainly there are many theology departments where questions of "truth" are somewhat beside the point. Yet I think the majority of Mormon scholars are concerned with questions about actual states of affairs just as our critics are. To suggest otherwise is, I think, to reduce the writings of Mormons on scriptural matters to "just an other story." Which few, if any, would claim.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble