Way back in June I mentioned a few discussions regarding what on earth the liberal vs. conservative taxonomy means in connection to Mormonism. Often it ends up being tied to political senses of the term or simply to how "orthodox" one is. However Juliann Reynolds felt that all this use of "liberal Mormon" was hijacking the term out of its theological context. In that context she felt that Mormon theology is very liberal. All of this was then tied to the question of Mormon postmodernism. (Discussed here, here, and here) One of Juliann's constant comments is that most critics of Mormon scripture and theology end up being conservative theologians, often buying into aspects of classic Enlightenment views of scholarship. Now as I said in some of the links above, I'm not sure I really buy Juliann's view there. Further I'm not sure the Enlightenment deserves quite the pejorative status she gives it. I think the kind of postmodernism that simply discounts certain critical stances as "Enlightenment thinking" ends up being little more than an unhelpful skepticism or worse.
Having said all that, I came upon an extended discussion between Juliann and two non-Mormons over at ZLMB. Now I have to admit that I stopped reading ZLMB with any regularity a long time ago. The signal to noise ratio just wasn't worth it. Further discussions quickly ended up reducing to the same sorts of comments. Skeptics demand more public proof than Mormons are able to provide. Skeptics don't consider private experiences of the sort Mormons claim to be sufficient epistemologically. Skeptics don't find Mormon apologetics plausible. When one ends up in the more philosophical discussions that underlie these sorts of divides, it unfortunately gets frustrating. Part of that is, of course, simply that most people can't really express where they are coming from philosophically. That means it is easy to misread them when trying to understand the premises for their arguments. In a sense, I think that is partially what ends up happening to Juliann. The other half is, I think, that the discussion ends up being largely a semantic issue over the meaning of the term "liberal" and whether Juliann is using it correctly. Unfortunately her interlocutors miss the issue of "correct in what context?"
Having given those caveats though, it seems that Juliann does raise some interesting points. While, as I said, I'm not sure I agree with her fully, it is an interesting discussion. Yes it inevitably ends up getting repetitive at times. But check out the early parts and you might find it somewhat interesting.
Note: The discussion continued in an other thread on that horrible Chapel Mormon vs. Internet Mormon dichotomy. (Down towards the end of the page)
The biggest problem with Juliann is she throws sources around that arn't necessarily bad, but she doesn't have the background to really understand and ends up using them badly.
The second biggest problem is, for someone who's biggest beef with the critics is their "binary thinking," she's really done a number with her own, "liberal/fundamentalist" dichotomy.
Anyway, I think with her commitment to Introvigne Massimo, her primary source, the biggest issue is identifying the so-called "mormon conservatives" like "David Bohn" who take a "postmodern" view on history. I emailed Massimo about this, and he really couldn't answer my question. Further, his response suggested he hasn't spent 5 minutes studying derrida or any of the others. I'm no expert, but i can tell when someone knows less about this than I do, and I'd never even consider trying to publish my ideas.
Let me say, that my opinion is the typical divide between those who are on the side of "objectivity" and those who have all kinds of cultural and linguistic filters, are mainly separated by the strength of their position. Disgregard mormonism for the moment, and I think you will find that in a typical argument, the party with a stronger position will perhaps overemphasize the infallibility of his case where the weaker position will question presuppositions, the meaning of truth etc.. The postmodernists I've read simply seem uninterested in the kind of evidential reasoning that FARMS and signiture are. They explore different modes of discourse and theorizing. More than anything, I just don't see any connection one way or the other.
As I've mentioned in the thread on Goff, I largely agree. I personally don't think the Signature arguments are always stronger. Frequently I find the opposite. However the argument really ends up being burden of proof. To an unbeliever the Mormon position entails a huge burden of proof that can't be provided. The only real answer the Mormons can offer is a different paradigm, the acceptance of which depends upon a private phenomena. (Personal revelation) Needless to say that won't convince anyone.
What I think Juliann is getting at though is less history than theology. Perhaps an example away from Mormons is more apt. A devout Christian is apt to see the meaning of the New Testament in a radically different way than an unbelieving historian. In terms of meaning, who is right? The unbeliever may believe in the supernatural. Say they are Hindu. But they are just not going to read the historical evidence as really even offering any reason to believe a guy was resurrected. Because of that presupposition, they are going to give weight for it all being a latter creation far more weight than the believer will. They will construct a radically different narrative from a different mode of discourse.
I tend to see these arguments as just complicated ways of saying, narratives that don't discount angels and God, are valuable as ways of discoursing. And, to be honest, that is true. And to the degree that the historian moves beyond general history into a kind of explicit or implied suggestion as to the activity of believers or investigators, they've brought these issues to the forefront.
The postmodern claim would be that evidence doesn't have a fixed "meaning" but is only given meaning within an argument. But, as you say, that is hardly that controversial point. Do we really need postmodernism to invoke it? Do we really need postmodernism to suggest that believers and unbelievers will interpret data radically differently? Surely we can see that in Biblical scholarship quite independent of Mormon history.
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