Click Here to Read My Ongoing Interview with Wade Englund

[NorthboundZax]

P.S. Wade, I found a little article you might like. It is from the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on post-modernism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Note:

"1. Precursors

"The philosophical modernism at issue in postmodernism begins with Kant's 'Copernican Revolution', that is, his assumption that we cannot know things in themselves...".

You might wish to compare this with comments on knowledge by Neal Maxwell, who I think not even you would dare label a "fundamentalist":

"Furthermore, Latter-day Saints know that certain knowledge comes only by revelation and, therefore, is only 'spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. 2:14–16.) So we are in some important respects on a different footing from other people of the world."

This re-states in almost identical language one of my points to you above. Would you label Maxwell a "semi-educated fundamentalist"? Or is it just possible, Wade, that perhaps Neal understood something about Mormonism that you don't?

More:

"Truth includes, but is not limited to, knowledge which corresponds to reality—things as they were, things as they are, and things as they will be. (See Jacob 4:13; D&C 93:24.)"

I doubt even you could square this statement with your poor parsings of the word truth, which you deem unworthy of ever escaping quotation marks, or reconcile the words "knowledge of things as they are" with Kant's view that we "cannot know things in themselves". Actually, let me take that back - you easily could, just by employing the right re-definitions.

I know no man can be judge in his own case, but honestly, I cannot see how this doesn't very much corroborate my points to you; that is, make totally plain how irreconcilable are your "interpretations" with Mormon doctrine as explained plainly by its most authoritative voices (See also Moroni 10:5 while contemplating Kant).

I welcome comments on our interview from any other readers.

For Maxwell's talk, see "The Inexhaustible Gospel" at: http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... ield%3ARef

[_wenglund]

Tal,

Let me try one more time to see if you can reach cognition on several basic points, and if so, then we can move on. If not, then we might as well call it a day, and you can restart your delusional victory dance and make ready to accepting your anticipated back-slapping from your like-minded and equally challenged audience here.

First of all, how is it that you do not understand the elementary difference between explicitly defining a term, and stating a term? For example, how is it that you do not understand that while the scriptures may use the word "know" (some of which you quoted), they do not explicitly define the word "know" (which you didn't quote because they don't exist)?

How is it that you do not understand that since the scriptures do not explicitely define the term "know", and since the word "know" has multiple connotations as well as multiple layers of interpretive meaning (see my analogy of the word "love"), that, contrary to what you suggest, there is, unavoidably, at least some ambiguity. In other words, it is ambiguous which connotation and which of the many layers of interpretive meaning the scriptural authors had in mind when they said "know".

Second, how is it that you do not understand that since there is this unavoidable ambiguity, that leaves the passages open to varied LEGITIMATE interpretations. In other words, I can legitimately interpret the meaning of the word "know" one way, and you can legitimately interpret it another. And, given that ambiguity and openness, I am not obliged to accept your interpretation over mine--particularly if your interpretation doesn't square with my view of the gospel and my understanding of "knowledge", and mine does?

Third, how is it that you don't understand the elementary difference between specifically defining terms, and using adjectives in relation to unspecifically defined terms? For example, how is it that you don't understand that specifically defining terms like "know" and "certain" and "sure" (which specific definitions don't occur in the scriptures or with prophets) is different from using those terms in connection with each other (which you quoted). With the former, were the specific definitions to exist in scripture (they don't), we would then be given to understand precisely what the author means; whereas with the latter we are left with a multiplicity of unavoidable ambiguities. For each of the terms there is ambiguity regarding which of the connotations and layers of interpretive meaning that the author had in mind, and with the combination of terms there is engendered more ambiguity.

Fourth, how is it that you do not understand that since there is this unavoidable multiplicity of ambiguity, that leave the passages open to varied LEGITIMATE interpretations. In other words, I can LEGITIMATELY interpret the meaning of the words "know" and "certain" and "sure" one way in combination, and you can LEGITIMATELY interpret them another way in combination. And, given the multiplicity of ambiguity and openness, I am not obliged to accept your LEGITIMATE interpretation over mine--particularly if your LEGITIMATE interpretation doesn't square with my view of the gospel and my understanding of "knowledge", and mine does?

In short, I can LEGITIMATELY interpret each instance of the word "know" to mean: "cognizance or perception". I can also LEGITIMATELY interpret the phrase "sure and certain knowledge" to mean: "having confidence and assured congnizance or perception". My LEGITIMATE interpretations fit consistently with what I have been saying about "knowledge" and "truth". As such, you are WRONG to suppose that I have been "incogruous" and "contradictory" with what the scriptures and prophets have said. You are WRONG to suggest that I am "a guy trying to claim that there is no reason to take Hinckley's phrase "sure and certain knowledge" to mean "sure and certain knowledge". You are WRONG to suggest that I am "retroactively redefining even the plainest of words and concepts". You are WRONG about the quotes not being at least somewhat ambiguous. You ae WRONG that I torpedoed Mormonism. I could go on, but this should suffice.

Finally, let me again quote what Paul said: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor. 13:8-11)

So, given my LEGITIMATE interpretations above, and this statement by Paul, you are, once again WRONG to say that my understanding "has NO basis in Mormon scripture or prophetic pronouncement."

Do you now correctly understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Oh, the excruciating irony of seeing Mormonism reduced to relying on post-modernism to salvage its "truth" claims (hey, let's parse about what "truth" means next).

see my quote from Dever's text that I cited on the postmodern apologia thread:

1. A text is an “interpretable entity independent of its author”.
2. The “author’s intention” is an “illusion created by readers”. What matters is only the author’s “semantic universe.”
3. Language is “infinitely unstable and meaning is always deferrable.”
4. All texts are to be “resisted”.
5. An author’s “convictions” are not to be confused with “theological, ethical, or narrative expressions”.
6. Others’ “legitimate readings” are as good as ours.

Dever rips into post modernism and essentially calls it a useless fad.

LDS testimony:

"I know the church is true"

code for

"I dearly hope and wish the church is true."

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

Perhaps I can answer your questions with another question:

How is it that you can read so many statements from Mormon scriptures and prophets/apostles describing Mormon epistemology so clearly, and yet post responses like the one you just did, which not only ignore their content, but refuse to acknowledge their existence, and instead ascribe this entire thing to me? I didn't write Moroni 10, Wade; I didn't deliver "The Inexhaustible Gospel"; I didn't write Hinckley's talk on "sure and certain knowledge", and I didn't invent Joseph Smith's statements on testimony. Members of your religion did. (I should add that I also didn't write your dictionary or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). So why not address your comments to those doctrinal statements, rather than take shots at me? All I'm doing is quoting them, and from what I can tell, they could not possibly be any clearer.

And it is just a guess, but perhaps it is that very clarity which induces such a sense of anxiety in you. It is as though the clearer the statements from authoritative church sources are, the more bitter your comments toward me. But this isn't about me, is it, Wade? Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley, "Moroni", Neal A. Maxwell, and dozens of others, can speak very well for themselves - and they have. It speaks volumes that you seem incapable of believing what they say. Why, you couldn't even muster a single response to those Maxwell quotes...

By the way, there's no victory dance here, only a sense of resignation about the fact that all these chats with church defenders always end in the same way: the church defender appears incapable of making any coherent defense of his faith at all, starts lashing out at his conversation partner personally rather than responding to arguments, starts repeating brute denials, and refuses to even acknowledge the existence of all the things that so obviously make his positions untenable. The only thing missing here is you starting to repeat your testimony - but perhaps that is even too much to hope for after you've so blatantly displayed your inability to believe in Mormonism's most basic claims about testimonies.

[_Gazelam]

I know that what is said about the Holy Ghost is true because I have seen it in action, and not just for myself.

On my mission I ask people to put Moroni's promise to the test, and in response they ask me to be baptised. By that same test I have seen a gay man become straight, and withen a few months the makeup and clothing was gone, and in its place a priesthood holder in a suit blessing the sacrament.

I add to this that I have been filled with the Holy Ghost in direct responce to the question "is this your church".

The Holy Ghost is very real, and purifys people and changes them.

It is by the Holy Ghost that you may know the TRUTH of all things, and know where you stand, and how to stand, in this fallen world.

If the Holy Ghost is something you wish to understand, then follow the requirements to enjoy his presence, and then you will see for yourself.

Gaz

[_wenglund]

Wade

Perhaps I can answer your questions with another question:

How is it that you can read so many statements from Mormon scriptures and prophets/apostles describing Mormon epistemology so clearly, and yet post responses like the one you just did, which not only ignore their content, but refuse to acknowledge their existence, and instead ascribe this entire thing to me? I didn't write Moroni 10, Wade; I didn't deliver "The Inexhaustible Gospel"; I didn't write Hinckley's talk on "sure and certain knowledge", and I didn't invent Joseph Smith's statements on testimony. Members of your religion did. (I should add that I also didn't write your dictionary or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). So why not address your comments to those doctrinal statements, rather than take shots at me? All I'm doing is quoting them, and from what I can tell, they could not possibly be any clearer.

And it is just a guess, but perhaps it is that very clarity which induces such a sense of anxiety in you. It is as though the clearer the statements from authoritative church sources are, the more bitter your comments toward me. But this isn't about me, is it, Wade? Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley, "Moroni", Neal A. Maxwell, and dozens of others, can speak very well for themselves - and they have. It speaks volumes that you seem incapable of believing what they say. Why, you couldn't even muster a single response to those Maxwell quotes...

By the way, there's no victory dance here, only a sense of resignation about the fact that all these chats with church defenders always end in the same way: the church defender appears incapable of making any coherent defense of his faith at all, starts lashing out at his conversation partner personally rather than responding to arguments, starts repeating brute denials, and refuses to even acknowledge the existence of all the things that so obviously make his positions untenable. The only thing missing here is you starting to repeat your testimony - but perhaps that is even too much to hope for after you've so blatantly displayed your inability to believe in Mormonism's most basic claims about testimonies.

Your questions to me do not come close to answering my questions to you. What I need to know is whether you will be answering my questions. If you choose not to, that is fine. Unlike you, I won't ascribe any tacit admissions to that, and just figure that we are at an impasse. Please advise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Wade

I don't know how else to say this...

Your questions appear to me to comprise a very obvious distraction attempt (no wonder), though I don't know if that is a conscious strategy on your part or not. But conscious or not, I'm not sure I want to enable that. Why shouldn't you be held accountable for what you've said? And if you refuse to be, I see no reason why that should be obscured by me facilitating what is essentially a change of topic. You have explained your faith in a way that is irreconcilable with authoritative doctrinal statements on Mormon doctrine - and frankly, pretending that there is definitional ambiguity where there really is none, just doesn't cut it, Wade. It's like my GOP example - which you also didn't respond to. It just doesn't work. Heck, even your own dictionary argued against you - and just like with every other valid point I've raised here, you have ignored that point, too. Why? I suppose I must leave that to others to decide.

Of course this constitutes an "impasse" - you won't even acknowledge, let alone respond to, valid point after valid point. I don't see any difference between this and the Jehovah's Witnesses I used to talk to in Argentina, who would just shut down or change the subject everytime they were brought face to face with a contradiction they couldn't explain.....Turns out your own dictionary makes you look foolish? No problem - just ignore that point when I raise it. Turns out you were wrong about Kant and post-modernism? No problem - just ignore that one, too, and just keep trying to imagine that it is I who is "semi-educated". Turns out Joseph Smith, Moroni, Neal Maxwell, Gordon Hinckley, and every other authoritative church voice contradicts you? No problem - just ignore them, too. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Ignore it. Ignore everything. Don't even respond to them. Retreat to simple denials, repetition, accusations that I don't understand you, and pure name-calling - even though (and perhaps this is most embarrassing for you of all) you label me a "semi-educated fundamentalist", when in fact everything I've said here, as I've taken pains to show, is corroborated by the most educated and authoritative voices out there - including your own dictionary. But no problem, right? You can just ignore that, too. Of course. With all due respect, I can't imagine why the FARMS folks wouldn't want you on staff. They act in much the same way.

This is how crazy this is: you label me a "fundamentalist" (as if that could make Mormon doctrine disappear), when all I've done is present statements from Joseph Smith, "Moroni", Gordon Hinckley, and Neal Maxwell. In short, the quotes I produced for you demonstrate that my understanding of this point of Mormon doctrine is identical to theirs; so by your own words, Wade, you label Mormonism itself a fundamentalist religion.

And what is funny is, of course you are right, though you cannot recognize it yet. For Mormonism is a "fundamentalist" religion, in that, it has certain fundamental items of doctrine which are held to be literal. And that Mormon epistemic claims are fundamental to it is why all those quotes say what they do, Wade; and that is also why they contradict what you say. And that is why you are as much an apostate, whether you wish to admit it or not, as anyone else: you do not believe in Mormonism, as Mormonism itself explains itself (as you keep proving). And neither do I. We are, in fact, in the same boat. Not that this is a problem - after all, Mormonism should not be believed in, because it is not what it claims to be. Perhaps some part of our minds is far cleverer than we ever imagined as believers, and was able to spot the fraud long before we could consciously admit it to ourselves. Why else would anyone have to ignore what Mormonism says about itself, in order to maintain belief in it? I can't imagine any other explanation...

[_wenglund]

I will take that as a rather verbose, self-justifying and higly projective, "no", you will not answer my questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tal Bachman]

Hey bro, at least it was more polite than "why should I facilitate the weird mindgames you seem to enjoy playing on yourself? Do what you want on your own time". You should be thanking me!

By the way, when are you going to respond to the fact that the Maxwell quotes seem to pretty much blow you out of the water?

Courteously yours (though perhaps starting to slip),

T.

[_beastie]

Since this interview seems to have reached its end, I will offer a comment - it's obvious by Wade's attempt to interview Tal that he didn't really understand Tal's primary point in all this. If I followed Tal correctly, the primary point is not whether or not we really can "know" anything, other than that we are conscious (and Tal didn't play the game right for Wade on the other interview by choosing that minimalist answer, so Wade was kind of stuck making a bad argument, which was funny) - the point is that, unless we go the extreme postmodernist route of insisting we can't even "know" what another person means by the word "know" (and lots of other words that, for all intents and purposes seem to illustrate what the person meant by the word "know"), then the church really can't be defended on its own terms, once a person realizes the limitations of "knowing".

This is one of the selling points of Mormonism - that God gave us a way to "know" the church is true. Often Mormons claim that this point differentiates them from all other religions. All the discussions between believers and exbelievers that talk about whether or not a testimony can be called feelings or whether it's something so different that is belittling are about this very point.

If reality is that this revelatory method of obtaining knowledge is still plagued by the same problems that other methods of obtaining knowledge are plagued by (I would argue its history demonstrates it is even more plagued), then Mormonism really cannot be defended on its own terms, because those are, indeed, the terms it offers the world.

This is why, aside from the many other challenges/problems inherent in foundational Mormon truth claims, in my view, all roads lead to "Rome", which is this very point. What the church claims will work, in the end, can be shown not to work after all.

By taking the stance that one cannot say what the brethren or scriptures meant by the word "know", Wade is taking an extreme postmodernist stance, and that is fundamentally contrary to the nature of the LDS church. It is contrary to its foundational claims.