First, yes, there might be some value in seeing some general categories of thinking among Latter-day Saints, but we run into major trouble if we reify these categories and see them as fundamental. If, when we see Brother X, the first thing we think of is “traditionalist” or “modernist” then we are in big trouble. Most Latter-day Saints would not self-identify themselves as either, and would probably see themselves as much more complicated.

Second, I wonder where I fit in. I do not see myself as a traditionalist OR a modernist. The modernist would probably call me a postmodernist (a label which I dislike) and the traditionalist might call me a relativist (a label that I dislike and which is wholly inaccurate). I am critical of the assumptions of both camps, in that both underestimate what is, to me, the fundamental realities of relationships and interpretation. I suppose I would call myself a relationalist, in that concrete relationships (not abstract modernist or traditionalist laws or principles) make the world go round. When Jesus Christ says He is the Truth, that for me means that all truth can only be seen in relationship to Christ. I would argue that this relational, non-dualistic, formal causal construct defies both traditionalist and modernist camps. Moreover, I see a growing number of Latter-day Saints who — if one is interested in pigeon-holing — fit better into this third camp then the other two. Even though they probably wouldn’t describe themselves using these words and labels.

One should build solidly upon the sure foundation of the Gospel. But, the structure needs to be appointed with enough windows and doors to allow in plenty of light and the fragrant breezes of the pneuma. So, yes it is important to know the level of one’s tendency to shutter the windows and bolt the doors.

A house of all windows and doors is of as little value as one without a strong foundation and proper substratum.

re: scientific observation vs revelation. I’ve never gotten this pairing. revelation is a form of communication, and reason is “thinking”. It’s like saying which is better, thinking about something or getting a phone call. If you asked which was better, God’s reasoning or mine, that’s different.

Sustainabalist- I think it is good to have a diversity of theolical approaches and perspectives, it helps us to get more from our religion, however, sometimes we fail to recognize or appreciate this need for diversity.

Mondo- so where is the balance, and how can one know? We see through a glass darkly, after all..

Matt- I think the traditionalism and modernism divide, as do many other divides, works best in “extreme” examples. (that’s a bad word for what I mean, but I can’t think of a better word) Think about people’s reactions to polygamy or evolution. I think people with a traditional bent are more likely to be disturbed by polygamy, and modernists are more likely to dismiss it as “other” than the Gospel in which they live and breath.

Eric: It’s not like a “bloods and crypts” sort of divide, but It’s pretty noticeable. I mean, It’s the little things, like when a missionary from Utah told me I was smart, not like other converts. Or when I was one of two people in my MTC group who had prayed and received an answer that the book of Mormon was true. Or how I embarrass lifers because I say insane things in church and want to talk about business theory in bishopric meetings (as a clerk, mind you)

The bifurcation you are talking about strikes me as very similar to the “iron rod” vs. “liahona” divide, which made me chuckle since I know you consider those labels worthless. Don’t you think these two dichotomies very similar?

You lost me with this comment…

If you mean “observation or revelation” I am not convinced these two are at odds with each other. (A hallmark of the “modernist” crowd Matt is referring to I suspect.)

So which is it? Scientific observation of revelation?

And you make a good point – I was thinking more about the social sciences, and more about practice than theology.