Steve, this sounds a bit like the infamous true scotsman or worse, the silly purported distinction between internet and chapel Mormons with only chapel Mormons having authentic Mormonism. If that’s your point I’d just disagree. Most members, for completely understandable reasons, don’t find the nuances of doctrinal debate terribly interesting. I’m not sure it’s fair to assume people who haven’t considered the issues as the only authentic type of Mormonism. For several reasons not the least of which being that to me the Apostles are exemplars of being Mormon yet they have a diversity of stances on these sorts of things. The fiction of “chapel Mormons” as a category makes it convenient for critics to disagree with Mormonism. Yet it’s ultimately a rather unfair approach.

Yes I would agree that a statement about Pluto should not be taken to be a statement about the existence of God, but I can see how one might use the majesty of the universe including Pluto as an “evidence” for a Divine Creator. I personally don’t find that to be very good “evidence”, but that is a judgement call. Certainly in a poem, say, such an interpretation might be reasonable.

So yes, I think we can agree that one is not free to reasonably take any possible interpretation of a text, but certainly there is often, not always though, a lot of leeway possible.

Thanks for your input but I think I will make my own decision about what Mormonism “really is” and what it means to me in my life and in my callings when I have to make decisions about what Mormonism is or is not. I wish you well.

Uh, no. The LDS church is extremely literalist in its teachings. I’m simply reminding you of what appears to be an inconvenient truth for you. You, Clark, and other Neo-Apologists are trying to invent a sort of Mormonism that is somehow compatible with modern reason and is symbolic and methaphoric. But this new Mormonism that you are creating is a complete distortion of what Mormonism actually is and actually teaches.

Ooh, wow, sounds so impressive! Whatever that is, it is most certainly not the key factor in what is shaping what you believe about truth. The teachings of the LDS church clearly have a much more influential role. In a desperate attempt to sound intellectual and independent thinking you invoke esteemed philosophers’ words (often out of context) and try to convince others (and yourself, probably yourself mostly) that you are arriving at belief in Mormonism because of some philosopher or another. This is simply not believable given your deeply Mormon background and surroundings and the fact that your target audience is intellectual Mormons. A huge part of your motive for studying philosophy is to justify your belief in Mormonism. It is not strictly philological. A solid set of Mormon teachings are unquestionable truth in your mind, and you just bend and twist famous philosophers’ words around to make your belief in Mormon teachings sound more legit that they really are. I cannot overemphasize how little any of the philosophers you invoke would be interested in validating Mormon truth claims.

Here is the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

To your other point, I’m actually quite open to many problems being linguistic confusions. Where I part ways with Wittgenstein (or at least how people frequently use him) is that I don’t think it’s the only worry. Again though this gets wrapped up in the temporal questions of how meanings change for people that Peirce was focused upon.

Steve, I think that’s a place where the dictionary isn’t too helpful. But beyond that all people are certain about some things. They may entertain intellectual doubts but don’t really doubt. So by your use everyone is a positivist. That’s not too helpful. I certainly agree that some have pushed postmodernism too far. But as we’ve discussed many times, I think it’s a much more minor position within Mormonism than you do. Even someone like myself who is deeply influenced by the Heideggarian and Levinasian phenomenological tradition really is not in any way a postmodernist of the sort you mean. I also think that the classic logical positivists are mistreated and used as caricatures to warn new generations from as if they were the boogeyman. While I think their project failed, it worked better than most want to admit.

As to Bloom, while there were elements that I think we justly thought were insightful, it was pretty clear in his book back in the 90’s on Joseph as a gnostic/kabbalistic creative genius that he thought Joseph a fraud. I don’t think apologists embraced things as uncritically as you suggest. (Alan Goff’s review is a good example) In a certain way Bloom is following closely in Brodie’s footsteps. She too had a respect of sorts for Joseph even if her views overall were repellant to most Mormons. Where I think Bloom was interesting was that he saw how Joseph used scripture and read it both carefully yet imaginatively. (We’d say inspired, but Bloom will only concede a poetic imagination) I think though that’s a big step up from how most critics take him. For most imagination is only significant in that Joseph was a skilled trickster and con man. His religious drive is always subservient to that prime focus. (Not everyone, Vogel is much harsher than Bloom of course, yet I certainly get the sense he has a similar respect for that aspect of Joseph)

I think though you want too manichaean a position. We either completely oppose them in every way or completely accept them. Rather I think we should trace through their arguments and engage them carefully. Accept the truth where it is and point out the assumptions and errors. It’s just not a black and white issue.

Bottom line: the anti-positivist postmodern thinkers aren’t as sympathetic to religion as many religionists like to think and are probably more in agreement with the supposed “positivists” about the (non)truthfulness of religious belief that the religionists themselves.