Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto

[Nofear]

Several good intellectual saints have signed this. I would too.

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

[Ahab]

Sounds good and in the time it takes to explain what the term means it provides an opportunity to share the idea of what being a true disciple of Jesus Christ is all about.  We\ do need some other term to replace True Blue Mormon.

[bluebell]

I read that last week and really liked it.  I hate the progressivism that says that there is no need for a member to have any loyalty to the church or it's leaders as long as they are loyal to Christ. 

If one of my children told me that they could be loyal to me without being loyal to the family it would break my heart (and I would not be in agreement with their assessment).

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I read that last week and really liked it.  I hate the progressivism that says that there is no need for a member to have any loyalty to the church or it's leaders as long as they are loyal to Christ. 

If one of my children told me that they could be loyal to me without being loyal to the family it would break my heart (and I would not be in agreement with their assessment).

Good for me to hear that you hate things like that.  I hate things like that too and will do whatever I can to get rid of all things that are like that, replacing them with anything that is better than those kinds of things.  A really really radical orthodox person, am I.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Several good intellectual saints have signed this. I would too.

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

Looks good AND it's on paper!

[CV75]

I'm wondering how much of this was inspired by the term "disciple-scholar" attributed to Elder Maxell and recently taught by Elder Holland: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/be-faithful-disciple-scholars-even-in-difficulty-elder-holland-says-at-maxwell-institute?lang=eng

I once saw a transcript of the entire presentation on this board, but have not since been able to find it online.

[Rain]

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

When I read that I thought of how people often do things just because that's the way they have always been done as if it is an almost automatic response without them putting much if any thought into why they are doing those things that way.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing?

Perhaps the idea here is that traditionalism is not as sure a foundation as, and perhaps can sometimes even be a hindrance to, continuing revelation, introspection, study, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 1, 2020 by smac97

[2BizE]

If you ever wonder how religious extremist groups like the Taliban, and  ISIS originated, this is how it starts. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, 2BizE said:

If you ever wonder how religious extremist groups like the Taliban, and  ISIS originated, this is how it starts. 

It's often referred to as thinking outside the box, and the key word is thinking.  Some people are just not very good at that part, the thinking part.

[smac97]

Just now, 2BizE said:

If you ever wonder how religious extremist groups like the Taliban, and  ISIS originated, this is how it starts. 

If you ever wonder how people like me come to find positions likes yours unserious and absurd, this is how it starts.

-Smac

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

I think they are talking about defending traditions without considering first whether the tradition should be defended.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

If you ever wonder how religious extremist groups like the Taliban, and  ISIS originated, this is how it starts. 

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Heresy":

Quote

Concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy are found in virtually all religious traditions. This is also the case among Latter-day Saints, but with important distinctions that arise from the emphasis placed on individual agency, accountability, behavior, and growth.

The traditional terms "orthodoxy," "heterodoxy," and "heresy" are used rarely by Latter-day Saints. Moreover, in words like "orthodoxy" and "heresy" the stress is on religious belief rather than on religious practice. In the determination of an individual's standing within the LDS tradition, emphasis is placed more on what a member says or does than on what he or she believes. Thus, the terms "orthodoxy," "heterodoxy," and "heresy," in a traditional sense, are less significant to Latter-day Saints.
...
{T}he Church admonishes its members to use their agency to do all they can to accept and live all the teachings and principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Moro. 10:32-33), knowing that they will eventually be held accountable for their choices and, for those who have lived worthily, lay claim to the promises made to them when they entered into covenants with God. Each member, at any given time, may be at any stage in this process. Each is encouraged to grow closer to the Heavenly Father and to emulate the Savior in thought and action. Members are urged to expand their knowledge of truth, grace upon grace, line upon line, and precept upon precept. Provided one continues in this effort, relying on the means of repentance that lead from baptism to eternal life, no rigid conceptual checkpoints or belief requirements are imposed to challenge a person's membership in the Church.

Distinctions arise, however, when worthiness to teach, to preach, to hold office, or to participate in temple worship comes into question. The more a person may influence others by virtue of his or her Church assignments or activities, the greater is the concern about worthiness to serve. In these instances, members are asked if they follow certain basic Church tenets (see Interviews; Temple Recommend). These include, among others, having faith in God the Father and in his Son Jesus Christ, believing in the fundamental concepts set forth in the Articles of Faith, acknowledging Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and sustaining the current President of the Church, the General Authorities, and local Church leaders. They also are asked if they abide by certain prescribed patterns of conduct (see Prayer; Righteousness; Chastity, Law of; Word of Wisdom; Tithing; Family; Callings; Activity in the Church). 

2. Consider this well-known quote from Joseph Smith:

Quote

“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

— Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340

Or this one from Elder Holland:

Quote

“In this Church there is an enormous amount of room—and scriptural commandment—for studying and learning, for comparing and considering, for discussion and awaiting further revelation. We all learn ‘line upon line, precept upon precept,’ with the goal being authentic religious faith informing genuine Christlike living. In this there is no place for coercion or manipulation, no place for intimidation or hypocrisy.”

– Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Prayer for the Children,” Ensign, May 2003

Or this one, also from Elder Holland:

Quote

“I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to {the origins of the Book of Mormon}, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. … We would say: 'This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.' … We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.”

I like these sentiments.

3. I think there are limits as to how liberally we can construe the doctrines of the Church.  I think perhaps the three primary limitations are:

• A) the proximity of the teaching to the "core" teachings of the Church, 
• B) how far the individual who holds "unorthodox" views goes in terms of persuading others in the Church to accept those views, and
• C) whether the individual sets himself/herself up as a voice of authority contrary and superior to that of the Brethren.

Amasa Lyman is a good example.  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

A more recent example would be Denver Snuffer.  An ancient example would be Korihor.  

Not all "heterodox" viewpoints are created equal. Some points of doctrine are open to some fairly broad interpretation. Latter-day Saints hold all sorts of viewpoints about things like the scope of Noah's flood, evolution, and so on. I think about such things it's hard to claim there are orthodox/heterodox positions, largely because we presently lack sufficient light and knowledge to be able to definitively state the scope of the flood, or the role (or lack thereof) of evolution in the creative process and/or the development of man, and so on.

There are points of doctrine, however, that are so important that substantially deviating from them (and encouraging others to join you) may constitute actionable "apostasy" (defined by the Church as "1, repeatedly act{ing} in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or 2, persist{ing} in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority").

I think it is concern about this that prompted the Manifesto's bullet point about "Revelation":

Quote

• Revelation. We affirm that the Church is guided by continuing revelation. We strive to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in all aspects of our lives, including our professional or scholarly endeavours. We recognize, however, that only those with the proper authority and stewardship can declare revelation for the Church and the world.

4. We are repeatedly commanded to not preach or accept false doctrine:

• Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you: Deut. 4:2 . ( Deut. 12:32 ; Prov. 30:6 ; Rev. 22:18–19 . )
• Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad.  Ezek. 13:22.
• If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  Gal. 1:9.
• But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  2 Pet. 2:1.
• Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.  2 Nephi 28:9.
• Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.  2 Nephi 28:12.
• And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.  Jac. 7:2.
• Nevertheless, this did not put an end to the spreading of priestcraft through the land; for there were many who loved the vain things of the world, and they went forth preaching false doctrines; and this they did for the sake of riches and honor.  Alma 1:16.
• That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.  Eph. 4:14.

5. I think one "false doctrine" that has started to make inroads amongst some members of the Church is to substantively sever devotion to Jesus Christ from devotion to His Church.  To diminish the role of the latter, such as what we saw happen with Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly, and others.  I think there is a reason why the Church is referred to as the metaphorical "bride" of Christ (see, e.g., here and here), and why we are sometimes characterized as being part of the "body of Christ".  Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 heavily influence my thinking on the importance of "unity of the faith."

6. I think the Manifesto is intended to rebut the above-referenced severance.  Hence the reference in it to "Fidelity":

Quote

• Fidelity. We are loyal to Jesus Christ and His Restored Church and submit to His divine authority by sustaining and following the local and general leaders of the Church.

7. The bullet point about "Truth" is, I think, intended to be a rebuttal to Korihor-style philosophies.

8. The last three bullet points, "Faith," Hope" and "Charity," are axiomatic, but still warrant repetition.  The optimism in these is needed and appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 1, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

 Perhaps they are going in the direction of not thinking of the purpose and meaning of your actions and beliefs, instead just doing something or thinking that way because that is the way it has always been done?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Several good intellectual saints have signed this. I would too.

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

I haven't read it yet, but I immediately cringe at the title: "Radical Orthodoxy".  I tend to disagree with most radical extremes, especially in relation to orthodoxy (more creedal) and tend to have more of an affinity towards religious orthopraxy (more practical).  I am sure that if I can get past the title, there will be some good stuff in there based on the comments here. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps the idea here is that traditionalism is not as sure a foundation as, and perhaps can sometimes even be a hindrance to, continuing revelation, introspection, study, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think they are talking about defending traditions without considering first whether the tradition should be defended.

 

I'm reading this as the polarization is not a good thing and that one of the things that polarization does is drive "members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism".

So yes tradition, especially knee jerk tradition without considering, may not be a sure foundation - why would it be bad/tempting to reduce fidelity to it then?

But maybe I caught it wrong and they think the polarization is a good thing?

Edited December 1, 2020 by Rain

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

I think the Manifesto's inclusion of "reduce" and "knee-jerk" was intended.  They are agreeing with you that "traditions can be good," but that "reduc{ing} fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism" is, or can be, problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't read it yet, but I immediately cringe at the title: "Radical Orthodoxy".  I tend to disagree with most radical extremes, especially in relation to orthodoxy (more creedal) and tend to have more of an affinity towards religious orthopraxy (more practical).  I am sure that if I can get past the title, there will be some good stuff in there based on the comments here. 

I suspect the word choice was intentional. If I'm correct, it invokes both a deliberate sense of "we think this is the way things are supposed to be" and "this is also a significant departure of the way things are--either direction--because things generally aren't as they are supposed to be".

" 1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I'm reading this as the polarization is not a good thing and that one of the things that polarization does is drive "members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism".

So yes tradition, especially knee jerk tradition without considering, may not be a sure foundation - why would it be bad/tempting to reduce fidelity to it then?

But maybe I caught it wrong and they think the polarization is a good thing?

I think they mean that extremes tempt some members to equate loyalty to the church to an unconsidered defense of the traditions of the church.

They are using “reduce” in reference to the definition of fidelity. They are not referring to lessening knee-jerk traditionalism. 

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven't read it yet, but I immediately cringe at the title: "Radical Orthodoxy".  I tend to disagree with most radical extremes, especially in relation to orthodoxy (more creedal) and tend to have more of an affinity towards religious orthopraxy (more practical).  I am sure that if I can get past the title, there will be some good stuff in there based on the comments here. 

They define the term in the manifesto:

“Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.

Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.”

[pogi]

 

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I suspect the word choice was intentional. If I'm correct, it invokes both a deliberate sense of "we think this is the way things are supposed to be" and "this is also a significant departure of the way things are--either direction--because things generally aren't as they are supposed to be".

" 1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical

 

So you are suggesting that "radical" (change from accepted traditional beliefs and understanding) is being juxtaposed with "orthodox" (adherence to accepted beliefs and understandings)?  That would be interesting. I interpreted radical to mean "extreme", or "Extreme Orthodoxy". 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They define the term in the manifesto:

“Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.

Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.”

Thanks, I was just about to comment on this.  To me, what they are proposing only has elements of orthodoxy and leans fairly heavily towards orthopraxy in some regards, and in other instances it seems to be fairly contradictory in its prescription, I think.  For example, the first paragraph encourages pure fidelity to foundational claims and revealed truth, but in the second paragraph encourages an exploration beyond "familiar" understanding of fundamental truths.  That is not really encouraged in orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy says "this is the truth, this is the correct way to believe, thou shalt not go hither or thither from it."  That is extreme orthodoxy.  What they are proposing is a more progressive approach to understanding revelation.  While they reject "excesses of progressivism" they encourage us to "revisit many facets of our received paradigm" and even reconsider "traditions, paradigms, and applications of the gospel inherited from prior generations."  Ya, revisiting/reconsidering historically orthodox tradition is not really what I would consider "radical (if they mean extreme) orthodoxy". 

It further states:

Quote

Radical orthodoxy cultivates humility and a recognition that far less is certain about many doctrinal matters than we often presume. 

It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. 

This is definitely contrary to my understanding of what creedal orthodoxy is and what it promotes.  This is way too progressive to be considered "radical orthodoxy", in my opinion - unless by "radical" they mean that they are diverting from traditional orthodoxy, and not implying that we should be "extremely orthodox". 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by pogi

[rongo]

Did they attribute anything to Orson Scott Card? His definitions in Saintspeak: A Mormon Dictionary (what's the copyright date on that? Sometime in the 1980s?) contained the following:

orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who has twelve children, a garden, a year's supply of food and supplies, every book with a General Authority's name on the cover, and a subscription to the Ensign, New Era, and Friend. The orthodox Mormon man has no debts, his wife does not work outside the home, and his house and yard are clean and fixed up. The orthodox Mormon woman has clean, obedient children, a house full of artifacts made on homemaking day, and a perfectly satisfied husband. There is no Mormon product that the orthodox Mormon will not buy, no acquaintance who has not heard about the gospel, and no doctrine or story told in a Church meeting that he or she does not believe. Orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including life itself, for the gospel; and being utterly teachable and meek, they will inherit the earth. (See radically orthodox Mormon.)

radically orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who believes without question only those doctrines that are clearly set forth in the standard works or that have been accepted as revelation by the uplifted hands of the Saints in General Conference. The radically orthodox Mormon takes part fully in all aspects of Mormon life, but does not believe that all Mormon customs are necessarily ordained by God; he or she will gladly try any suggestion for improvement, and gladly abandon any practice that does not work. Radically orthodox Mormons seek truth everwhere—in prayer, in gospel study, in Church meetings, and in the world—and will embrace any idea that is good; however, even though they are constantly learning, they almost never argue about doctrine because their faith is that God will make clear what must be clear, and if there is a difference of opinion, God will resolve it when resolution becomes necessary to our exaltation. Radically orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including their lives, if the Lord required it, but will not give up one friend for the sake of winning an argument. It is practically impossible to tell a radically orthodox Mormon from an orthodox one; it may well be that no one is radically orthodox in all aspects of life. But the difference between them is profound, for while both are meek and teachable, the one listens while the other also sees. (See orthodox Mormon.)

[rongo]

I don't care for the term, myself. I think it's trying too hard to be "fresh," and "profound," but has the same effect as Mitt Romney's "severely conservative."