Coggins7 wrote:Its great to see I'm now being thought of as Julianne in drag (I'm male, in all actuality) as she's a very educated and knowledgeable lady, with an excellent grasp of LDS doctirne and the exmo world. However, I'm not her and I hope she's not me. But thanks for the compliment.
Loran
Compliment? that's a slurr...like a voice of someone whos been drinking.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Coggins7 wrote:Its great to see I'm now being thought of as Julianne in drag (I'm male, in all actuality) as she's a very educated and knowledgeable lady, with an excellent grasp of LDS doctirne and the exmo world. However, I'm not her and I hope she's not me. But thanks for the compliment.
Loran
Compliment? that's a slurr...like a voice of someone whos been drinking.
HEY wheres my RUM CAKE? This is just plain cake... no rum... hmmmmmmmmmm
Compliment? that's a slurr...like a voice of someone whos been drinking.
Loran:
Coming form someone with all the charm, personality, and intellectual depth of a Fiddler Crab, that's quite a statement.
Loran
I don't understand why it always has to get personal. Yes, some people are a little more caustic than others, but it doesn't help to derail the conversation from the actual subjects and focus instead on personalities.
As far as Juliann goes, I like her enough, but I find her use of postmodernism highly ironic.
I don't understand why it always has to get personal. Yes, some people are a little more caustic than others, but it doesn't help to derail the conversation from the actual subjects and focus instead on personalities.
As far as Juliann goes, I like her enough, but I find her use of postmodernism highly ironic.
I haven't followed Julianne's postings at FAIR for quite sometime, but postmodernism is the antithesis of serious intellectual inquiry, so I don't know how she could use it at all. At ZLMB, I think it was Clark Gobel that tried to claim that postmodernism held out some promise of a temeplate useful for LDS in handling criticism of the Church. I researched his perspective a little, mostly some of the ideas of Foucault regarding religion, but found the entire thing rather implausable philosophically, as neither Foucault nor postmodern theory per se are compatable with church teaching, or the general conservative/libertarian leanings of the vast majority of its members.
Postmodernism is an intellectual fad that I think Julianne has picked up because of its conspicuousness in the modern academy (and especially in the humanities and social sciences) but will eventually run its course. Julianne will eventually grow out of it, I'm sure. At the very least, its vigorous nihilism and relativism, visceral hostility to western civilization and values, and its deep association with the anti-liberal, anti-democratic academic left, puts it at odds with just about everything LDS. Its a generational thing with people like Julianne I think, much like the crackpot economic and social theory of Marxism was with otherwise intelligent American students and intellectuals in the sixites and seventies. Some people see through this kind of stuff at the outset, and others need to experiment with the latest theory or intellectual reference frame until the allure wears off.
I don't understand why it always has to get personal. Yes, some people are a little more caustic than others, but it doesn't help to derail the conversation from the actual subjects and focus instead on personalities.
As far as Juliann goes, I like her enough, but I find her use of postmodernism highly ironic.
I haven't followed Julianne's postings at FAIR for quite sometime, but postmodernism is the antithesis of serious intellectual inquiry, so I don't know how she could use it at all. At ZLMB, I think it was Clark Gobel that tried to claim that postmodernism held out some promise of a temeplate useful for LDS in handling criticism of the Church. I researched his perspective a little, mostly some of the ideas of Foucault regarding religion, but found the entire thing rather implausable philosophically, as neither Foucault nor postmodern theory per se are compatable with church teaching, or the general conservative/libertarian leanings of the vast majority of its members.
Postmodernism is an intellectual fad that I think Julianne has picked up because of its conspicuousness in the modern academy (and especially in the humanities and social sciences) but will eventually run its course. Julianne will eventually grow out of it, I'm sure. At the very least, its vigorous nihilism and relativism, and visceral hostility to western civilizattion and values puts it at odds with just about everything LDS. Its a generational thing with people like Jilianne I think, much like the crackpot economic and social theory of Marxism was with otherwise intelligent American students and intellectuals in the sixites and seventies. Some people see through this kind of stuff at the outset, and others need to experiment with the latest theory or intellectual reference frame until the allure wears off.
Loran
Wow, we actually agree on something. I don't know that I'd say it's antithetical to serious intellectual inquiry, but it is certainly not applicable to evaluating the claims of a religion that posits its possession of absolute Truth.
Wow, we actually agree on something. I don't know that I'd say it's antithetical to serious intellectual inquiry, but it is certainly not applicable to evaluating the claims of a religion that posits its possession of absolute Truth.
Loran:
No, it can't, nor can it be used to evaluate the truth claims of any system or body of belief, even scientific truth, as it doesn't accept the existence of the concept. Everything, everything is nothing more than a "text" or socially constructed artifact of the ideological predilections of the dominant classes of society. Any alternate "text" can therefore be imposed upon a text, whether it be a piece of literature, film, theater, scupture, philosophy, religion, political ideas, economic system or whatever. It can be 'interrogated" it through the filter of postmodern theory, with the intent of extracting and analyzing its possible ideological content. To this degree, its very close to the cultural Marxism that is dominant in higher education, even though some strains of Postmodern theory, and Deconstruction, are hostile to traditional Marxism. Postmodernism has absorbed a great deal of the cultural Marxism around it, however, and so what we have on most campuses today is an American hybrid, and not pure French philosophy (but it took French intellectuals a generation after WWII to figure out whether Communism was really all that bad of an idea, so, well, the Left is the Left, even when infighting emerges on some issues).
Its a very sophisticated and jargon riddled (and therefore seemingly philosophically deep) form of what can only be called navel gazing. Its of no use whatever in literary criticism because it isn't intereted in what the author of a work had to say; only in what postmodern theory has to say about it (how can the "text" be interrogated from a feminist, multiculturalist, Queer, LGBT, Post Colonial, Marxist, Afrocentric, or whatever perspective. One is looking for the ideological potentialities in a text, not its original intent).
No, it can't, nor can it be used to evaluate the truth claims of any system or body of belief, even scientific truth, as it doesn't accept the existence of the concept. Everything, everything is nothing more than a "text" or socially constructed artifact of the ideological predilections of the dominant classes of society. Any alternate "text" can therefore be imposed upon a text, whether it be a piece of literature, film, theater, scupture, philosophy, religion, political ideas, economic system or whatever. It can be 'interrogated" it through the filter of postmodern theory, with the intent of extracting and analyzing its possible ideological content. To this degree, its very close to the cultural Marxism that is dominant in higher education, even though some strains of Postmodern theory, and Deconstruction, are hostile to traditional Marxism. Postmodernism has absorbed a great deal of the cultural Marxism around it, however, and so what we have on most campuses today is an American hybrid, and not pure French philosophy (but it took French intellectuals a generation after WWII to figure out whether Communism was really all that bad of an idea, so, well, the Left is the Left, even when infighting emerges on some issues).
Its a very sophisticated and jargon riddled (and therefore seemingly philosophically deep) form of what can only be called navel gazing. Its of no use whatever in literary criticism because it isn't intereted in what the author of a work had to say; only in what postmodern theory has to say about it (how can the "text" be interrogated from a feminist, multiculturalist, Queer, LGBT, Post Colonial, Marxist, Afrocentric, or whatever perspective. One is looking for the ideological potentialities in a text, not its original intent).
Well, that is the point of postmodernism: that text is political by nature. One does not need to look for ideological potentialities. But your interpretation seems to be that postmodernists distort meaning to extract ideological use. I would have to disagree with that. Interestingly enough, the most well-known critic of postmodernism is an avowed Marxist.
Coggins7 wrote:Its great to see I'm now being thought of as Julianne in drag (I'm male, in all actuality) as she's a very educated and knowledgeable lady, with an excellent grasp of LDS doctirne and the exmo world.
HUH??? How do you figure?
Juliann may have taken one or two graduate-level online courses several years ago, but "educated" stretches it past the breaking point.
"Knowledgeable" hardly applies either, since anyone can do google searches for random quotes from one's favorite authority.
As for "excellent grasp of LDS doctrine," she's the lunatic fringe of the Internet Mormon movement. Her views and interpretation of Mormonism have absolutely no points of connection with what the prophets teach and what is taught in church.
Finally, the notion that she supposedly has "an excellent grasp . . . of the exmo world" is wholly beyond the scope of reality. She has demonstrated time and time again that she'll do almost anything to remain purposefully ignorant of the the exmormon "world," even when she has access to numerous real-life exmormons who are the ultimate authorities on the exmormon "world."
What on earth led you to make the conclusions about her that you do?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
It brings back memories to see a frightened TBM resort to calling me insane in order to justify my story. Welcome!
Now, I will touch on one of your "points"...the one about me being miserable when I went into the church, and being miserable when I left, hence your hole-filled logic deduces that I had to cause the whole problem myself?
I know you don't give a damn about me, but I will make one thing clear. And I also know that you, like BCSpace, are too afraid to go on my other thread and read about what your TBM colleagues have to say about the priesthood ban, you don't want to see books recently published (2003) that back up what I've been saying. I understand. The Christmas holiday is not a good time for such emotional upset. It's simply easier to think of me as a bum, sitting on the proverbial steps of affirmative action and the NAACP, screaming "bitchhon*gga" at every person who passes by, while alternating with swigs of my 40 oz. Whatever. :D
Now, onto my misery. First of all, it no longer exists. That is due to several factors. Secondly, your rediculous comment about my words "my background led me down many a sad path" was so off the mark. I'm 25 today, and completely in control of my destiny. That destiny includes college (albeit 7 years late, because I couldn't get pertinent signatures on my financial aid forms) with a 3.0 GPA, on average two jobs, and a very creative life. I write songs, I sing, I work with children. You don't know me, so you obviously don't know the people out there who can vouch for my good name. But I understand that in losing the game of Mormon apologetics, when up against the wall, last resort is character defamation. I can see you've been at FAIR for too long.
That particular sentence, one among many, that you took out of context, was true. You see, I feel that when we are children, we don't have control of our environments. I'm grown now, and I do have control over my actions, reactions, etc. I also have the ability to go back and clean up messes I made in ignorance years ago. It's frustrating at times, but you do it. What I went through and was going through when I was LDS, was not my doing. I can't control my family's issues, their drug habits, breeding techniques, etc. But I can control me, and as much of a nut as you think I am, I've never touched an illegal substance, never been in jail, set a record in my family, the oldest to NOT concieve yet...you don't know me, slim!
But I understand.
Rule number 1 in Mormon apologetics: When you can't find a suitable argument, call the person mental.
Rule number 2: If that doesn't work, call the person unstable.
Rule number 3: If that doesn't work, tell them they brought the problem upon themselves.
Rule number 4: If none of the above work, walk away with your fingers in your ears, humming and bearing your testimony, while convincing yourself that the evidence the person has was probably contrived by satan anyway.
ROFL
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi