Postmodern Mormonism?

Modernity is a concept that social theorists grapple with. It is often contrasted with postmodernism, which the linked entry notes "generally refers to the criticism of absolute truths or identities and 'grand narratives.'" While this is already a postmodern world in some respects, religion tends to trail social trends by a few decades. But maybe it is catching up: postmodern religion may be just over the horizon.

This is clear, for example, in reading about the Emerging Church (EC), the latest trend in Christianity. Some see the EC as nothing less than postmodern religion: non-institutional, narrative rather than rational, immersed in media and technology, and largely unconcerned with traditional religious concepts like denominational identity, theology, or creeds. It could be just another religious fad or it could be a glimpse of the future of Christianity. Here's my question: Is there a parallel in Mormonism? What would a postmodern LDS Church look like?

I'll throw out a couple interesting ideas. First, blogs play a key role in the EC (see this post at BT for some interesting links). It's how EC churches and luminaries make their presence known and recruit adherents. So, oddly enough, the Bloggernacle is one candidate for postmodern Mormonism, along with other online forums where Mormons of various stripes (active, cultural, former, anti, etc.) interact. It might be the closest thing to an Emerging Mormon Church, but it really doesn't feel very postmodern to me. Or maybe the Christian EC is the left face of postmodern Christianity, whereas the Bloggernacle is a more conservative version.

Another surprise candidate for postmodern Mormonism is the FARMS Review, whose writers often invoke postmodern positions to counter critics who employ naturalistic perspectives in their critique of LDS history or beliefs. To me, this has always seemed like an odd tactic to employ, and I honestly can't tell whether they adopt postmodern perspectives sincerely or just rhetorically. Again, they hardly seem like a postmodern group, but then I don't really claim to understand how they think over there. If you don't like my candidates for postmodern Mormonism, throw out one of your own.

Last thought: What (if anything) will move the Church in new directions, whether postmodern or otherwise? Increasing growth in South America and Africa? The impact of technology? The influence of historians or intellectuals? The cultural confrontation with Islam that seems to be looming over the West? The Church has in many ways been in a retrenchment mode since 1890, regrouping and consolidating, but we're about as consolidated as an institution can get at this point. I think we might be due for some fundamental changes to "take it to the next level" in the next generation or two.

[Note: I rewrote the first two paragraphs on 4/6. They make more sense now. How fitting -- writing a post on postmodernism and having it come out incoherent.]

Comments

[Clark Goble]

Just a note, but Kuhn isn't postmodern. Yet he is who FARMS usually invokes. Kuhn is a neo-Kantian.

Personally I vote that we just disband the whole "pomo" label. It is confused and muddled enough in connotation now that it does more to confuse than to illuminate.

[Naiah]

(note, all I have to go on here as far as understanding is a quick spin through wikipedia. So, if I'm completely off base, just say like "nice try Naiah, but no" and know that I apologize.)

I'm already seeing some trends in the chruch that echo the earmarks that wikipedia gives for EC. As we become a more glabal church, there is less identifying as a Utah/pioneer/social group/homogenous culture. With such a wide spectrum of peoples, we have but one thing in common--Christ, and much of what was previously church identity has begin to fall away. You see more and more "this is His church" with an emphasis on the 'His' as opposed to the 'church'. The logo was reworked some years ago to being "Jesus Christ" out more prominently visually.

I suppose emergent Latter-day Saints would self-identify primarily as Christian, as opposed to "Mormon" or "LDS." (I think we should use the term LDC, myself, but that's for another soap box.)

I think our heirarchy is still very necessary, but, in a sense it is already very progressive in this same vein, as it is a lay clergy, shrinking the delta between said heirarchy and the hoi polloi of the church.

I agree that the 'nacle brings us as close as anything to this model. We discuss, we share, we learn, we enrich our spiritual lives like any spiritual community, and yet there is no bishop (unless you count J. Stapley, hahaha) or leaders.

[Dave]

For a lengthy exchange on LDS postmodern perspectives, visit Clark's memorable post on the subject.

[Clark Goble]

Thanks for the plug Dave, although I pity anyone who wades through all the comments.

Just to make a further point, to be anti-positivist is not to be a postmodernist. Indeed by the 1950's positivism had largely been discredited in philosophy (largely by Popper and Quine). It still had an influence and there are still quasi-positivists. (Such as DKL) But one hopes that the portrayal isn't between a vague and nebulous "postmodernism" and a strawman of positivism. There really are lots more choices.

[Naiah]

Thanks, Dave. I appreciat eth pointer. I've started cutting thorugh it, but, being 6 pages long and all, alas, it doesn't exactly fit in between homeschool lessons and potty training, and of such if my mundane existence composed. The thread that never dies, indeed.

[Clark Goble]

If you want the one paragraph summary of the thread Naiah, basically Vogel does adopt some positivist tendencies, some argue "what's so wrong with positivism?," FARMS doesn't worry about who their audience is nor the rhetorical effect of their essays, having a bias isn't bad so long as one is clear about what it is, and the real debate is over the facts and interpretation of the facts.

A lot of the comments go around and around. In fact just reading the first page I cringed at how often I repeated exactly the same point. Ugh.

[RoastedTomatoes]

I am fully in favor of a religion that is more experiental and less propositional. Is that postmodern? I think it's profoundly Mormon, in any case; we've never been much good at systematic theology...

[Clark Goble]

I guess it all depends upon what one means by "experiental."

[John W. Redelfs]

Dave, you asked, "What (if anything) will move the Church in new directions, whether postmodern or otherwise? Increasing growth in South America and Africa? The impact of technology? The influence of historians or intellectuals? The cultural confrontation with Islam that seems to be looming over the West?"

May I respectfully suggest that continuing revelation from God to authorized prophets will move the Church in new directions. All other influences will be minor and incidental.