What Mormon "Postmodernists" beleive

[SeattleUte]

SIEQ calls me a "modernist" because I state certain expectations that I have for the Book of Mormon (given its claims) that it utterly fails to fulfill.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6216

Mormon "postmodernists" are honest fellows; they are honest with themselves and with you and me. They forthrightly acknowledge that the Book of Mormon is indefensible as historical record, or, for that matter, as what Joseph said it was. Needless to say, same with the Book of Abraham.

Here's their response: So what? "Truth" is impossibly subjective, unverifiable, and even when seemingly verifiable inevitably fact specific. Even empiricism is an illusion. Even if a given proposition to all appearances has been established as true, no "truth" can explain all things in any event. As the philospher Paul Fyerabend said, "The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

Hence, in terms of metaphysical matters, whatever floats your boat is "truth." It could be gazing at a laquered cow pattie. It could be the Book of Mormon, or Joseph's story of how it came to be.

Two thousand years ago my hero Lucretius anticipated postmodernism, identifying its reductio ad absurdam: "If anyone thinks nothing is to be known, he does not even know whether that can be known, as he says he knows nothing."

Obviously, such an infinitely elastic theory as postmodernism is the perfect antidote to any arguments against veracity of the Book of Mormon. Hugh Nibley even was a postmodernist of sorts. I once heard him reply to questions from a New Yorker writer about the Book of Abraham with, "We don't really even know whether there was such a person as Abraham." (My paraphrase.)

I think Ernst Mach came closest to encapsulating what SEIQ has been articulating here: "A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations: these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow."

Actually, I don't think that SEIQ and I are that far apart, if at all. I don't see how he could disagree with my statement that all devoutness and apostasy is cultural. I've just made a value judgment about what floats my boat and what doesn't. As I understand postmodernism, one thing it does recognize is the value of making such value judgments. It just doesn't purport to mediate between mine and Rocky's or anyone else's.

I obtained the above philosophical quotations from this web site:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philos...-Modernism.htm

[All-American]

But that leaves out one important part of the equation. Because emperical knowledge is not entirely reliable, the spirit is an important part of the learning and living process, because it can act as a safeguard and a guide.

Empirical knowledge and spiritual guidance are both imperfect, and complete assurance is not guaranteed even with both systems in place. That is not to deny the importance of either.

Not to speak on the behalf of Rocky, SEIQ, or anybody else, but I suspect that this is one big difference distinguishing their beliefs from yours.