Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.)

I used to cherish my copy of that book. I don't know what happened to it...

[Stargazer]

1 hour 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. 

Yeah, I get twitchy over the term 'orthodoxy", although when I read the statement I found myself largely if not completely in agreement with it. I have a reason for looking at "orthodoxy" in a rather narrow-eyed way:

While I was on my mission I had a rather perplexing dream. In it, I was standing inside a very large carpeted room, somewhat like one of those big conference rooms they have in some hotels. The room was divided into two parts by one of those "ropes" that are used as room dividers and queue lanes. There were tables and chairs on both sides of the rope. I noticed a man sitting on the other side of the rope from me, and I must have looked quizzically at him (don't remember asking anything), and he volunteered the information, in a somewhat snooty tone of voice, that "We're orthodox Mormons!"  With emphasis on "orthodox". The implication was not positive, and I did not get the feeling this was a good idea.

But I am reminded in this case of Orson Scott Card's definition of Radically Orthodox Mormon in SaintSpeak -- which was quoted above by @rongo. Perhaps there's a big difference between orthodox and radically orthodox.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Stargazer

[Nofear]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps there's a big difference between orthodox and radically orthodox.

And perhaps we don't see that difference as readily or easily because our language lacks the subtlety for it. /summons the spirit of mfbukowski

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Nofear

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Nofear said:

And perhaps we don't see that difference as readily or easily because our language lacks the subtlety for it. /summons the spirit of mfbukowski

 

That's the incorrect summoning incantation, Nofear! 

Try @mfbukowski!

Interestingly, I watched that video yesterday already! 

[let’s roll]

I thought the manifesto was well written.  When combined with the other articles on the site there’s a comprehensive explanation of how those who have signed the manifesto define radical orthodoxy and how they hope their initiative will provide focus, and a commonly understood vocabulary, for their work which can also be understood, and used by, those reading their work.  

I noticed three Givens signed the manifesto.  I appreciate the nuanced approach they bring to their work.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Interestingly, I watched that video yesterday already! 

Feedback loop in play....

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

Ahh..Somehow I was missing "reduce".  Thanks!  

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

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

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

Well it speaks of "truth" as an abstract, outside of context.

I don't understand what that means.   In 2500 years of Western Philosophy no one has ever come up with a perfect definition. 

But I suppose I believe a lot of things that cannot be defined.  Like blue.

OK, sign me up 

Edited December 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours 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 understand the feeling, yet there is still nothing on there with which I disagree except the idea of abstract "Truth".  But sure I believe that some statements are true and others are not.   I just don't know what "truth' means but I can point to it when I see it.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

And perhaps we don't see that difference as readily or easily because our language lacks the subtlety for it. /summons the spirit of mfbukowski

 

Oh man that is FUNNY!   I edited that out though....  !!!!   Now I gotta add it back!!!

Edited December 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Islander]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

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

...and you were talking about radicals???

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh man that is FUNNY!   I edited that out though....  !!!!   Now I gotta add it back!!!

Someone contacted me on my email regarding my comments on this thread about the nature of truth.

Thanks for the question

Insofar as my view of "Truth" is concerned- see below.   I often use Richard Rorty to describe the views of William James on the nature of truth- and Rorty and James are pretty close on this one.

I will get back to you personally, but not for a day or two.   But I thought I would answer very briefly here as well buy simply quoting Rorty again- because he puts my views so clearly.

Quote

 

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

So for me there IS no-thing called "Truth" which is definable, but only true or false claims/sentences/descriptions.

[teddyaware]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Someone contacted me on my email regarding my comments on this thread about the nature of truth.

Thanks for the question

Insofar as my view of "Truth" is concerned- see below.   I often use Richard Rorty to describe the views of William James on the nature of truth- and Rorty and James are pretty close on this one.

I will get back to you personally, but not for a day or two.   But I thought I would answer very briefly here as well buy simply quoting Rorty again- because he puts my views so clearly.

So for me there IS no-thing called "Truth" which is definable, but only true or false claims/sentences/descriptions.

Since the Savior is a “thing,” and more than once testified he is the truth, I’m sure you and he would have a very interesting discussion on the subject. I can see it now: “With all due respect, Lord, you’re a thing and no thing can be the truth.” Perhaps you might be able to convince him he’s mistaken? Wouldn’t it be cool if he decided to modify the scriptures to reflect his more enlightened understanding? “Because I am a thing I cannot be the way, the truth, nor the life, but follow me anyway.” 😏 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Since the Savior is a “thing,” and more than once testified he is the truth, I’m sure you and he would have a very interesting discussion on the subject. I can see it now: “With all due respect, Lord, you’re a thing and no thing can be the truth.” Perhaps you might be able to convince him he’s mistaken? Wouldn’t it be cool if he decided to modify the scriptures to reflect his more enlightened understanding? “Because I am a thing I cannot be the way, the truth, nor the life, but follow me anyway.” 😏 

I know you are an intelligent man, but you have clearly..... misspoken here.

No the savior is not a THING- he is a person who speaks and teaches and what he speaks and teaches IS TRUTH ITSELF.   Humans are not things.  His path- his teachings about life-  are truthful and "true" the experiences he brings forth are true and the only kind of "truth" which we can experience.

As I said only statements can be true or false, and his statements are directly experienceable in our lives.  He TEACHES truth which is directly verifiable by living its principles as is taught brilliantly in Alma 32.

But the statement "We believe in truth" really doesn't mean much.

If it said "We believe in the TRUTH found in the teachings of Jesus Christ" - that makes perfect sense.

Yes by his WORDS he created the earth.  By his Words he created the perfect path to eternal life.   If you want to take all that and throw it together as "Truth" of statements that's fine but it is not believing in TRUTH.

Even by third grade grammar, Truth is not a "person place or thing" and therefore is a noun and persons ARE not nouns.  The word "noun" is itself not a noun!

We see now thought a glass darkly we do not SEE TRUTH- that is beyond our ability to see. We only know what actions bring about desired results- and His teachings bring about those desired results

Straight Alma 32.   Read it again.  At first we don't know truth but then after pragmatic practice, we figure out what PRACTICES are "true"

Truth is FOUND in practicing faith- it is not some abstract cloud that one believes in.  It produces belief through practice.  We do not pray to TRVTH as a Greek god, but we do pray to the author of truth.

One believes in true sentences and or practices, not undefinable clouds of nothing.

Cheesh.  

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know you are an intelligent man, but you have clearly..... misspoken here.

No the savior is not a THING- he is a person who speaks and teaches and what he speaks and teaches IS TRUTH ITSELF.   Humans are not things.  His path- his teachings about life-  are truthful and "true" the experiences he brings forth are true and the only kind of "truth" which we can experience.

As I said only statements can be true or false, and his statements are directly experienceable in our lives.  He TEACHES truth which is directly verifiable by living its principles as is taught brilliantly in Alma 32.

But the statement "We believe in truth" really doesn't mean much.

If it said "We believe in the TRUTH found in the teachings of Jesus Christ" - that makes perfect sense.

Yes by his WORDS he created the earth.  By his Words he created the perfect path to eternal life.   If you want to take all that and throw it together as "Truth" of statements that's fine but it is not believing in TRUTH.

Even by third grade grammar, Truth is not a "person place or thing" and therefore is a noun and persons ARE not nouns.  The word "noun" is itself not a noun!

We see now thought a glass darkly we do not SEE TRUTH- that is beyond our ability to see. We only know what actions bring about desired results- and His teachings bring about those desired results

Straight Alma 32.   Read it again.  At first we don't know truth but then after pragmatic practice, we figure out what PRACTICES are "true"

Truth is FOUND in practicing faith- it is not some abstract cloud that one believes in.  It produces belief through practice.  We do not pray to TRVTH as a Greek god, but we do pray to the author of truth.

One believes in true sentences and or practices, not undefinable clouds of nothing.

Cheesh.  

You made me think of this series of articles: https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/series/who-is-truth/

Their intro says:  "When asked, “How can we know the truth?” Christ answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” What if we take this seriously? If we see truth as a person, instead of as a set of ideas, how does this change the way we think about our faith?"

It's not exactly Rorty, but it contrasts a Hebraic view of truth with the later Hellenistic view.  It's hard to wrap my head around, but it is interesting.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

That was an excellent set of observations and commentary on that Manifesto, but I found myself reading your signature for what seemed like the first time ( this is off-topic, so I apologize):

--"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." -- Evette Carter
--"{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  -- Isaiah 30:9-10
--"We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church." -- Elder Harold B. Lee
--"We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green." -- G.K. Chesterton
--“Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which even our perceptions are based. This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous.” --Jordan Peterson

And I found it to be an extremely valuable piece of work in itself. I especially like the bolded bit above.

[Stargazer]

15 hours 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 have a similar knee-jerk reaction to "orthodoxy", but upon reading it I found myself in complete agreement.  I ran the Manifesto past my former bishop and current stake presidency 2nd counselor, and he liked it, too. But he wasn't bothered by the word "orthodox".

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well it speaks of "truth" as an abstract, outside of context.

I don't understand what that means.   In 2500 years of Western Philosophy no one has ever come up with a perfect definition. 

But I suppose I believe a lot of things that cannot be defined.  Like blue.

OK, sign me up 

OK, here you go:

"Blue: The eye perceives blue when observing light with a dominant wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres."

There's the definition.  

Edited December 2, 2020 by Stargazer

[Nofear]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, here you go:

"Blue: The eye perceives blue when observing light with a dominant wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres."

There's the definition.  

How about pink then? Or how the yellow of this 🍋? Your monitor/screen is physically incapable of producing yellow wavelengths of light and yet we perceive it as yellow.

The perception of color (and perception in general) is a fascinating topic that leads one down a rabbit hole to a wondrous land. A bit off topic though.

 

Edited to add this link since the pink comment isn't all that apparent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuPF6JtWdw

Edited December 2, 2020 by Nofear

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That was an excellent set of observations and commentary on that Manifesto, but I found myself reading your signature for what seemed like the first time ( this is off-topic, so I apologize):

--"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." -- Evette Carter
--"{T}his is a rebellious people ... which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..."  -- Isaiah 30:9-10
--"We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church." -- Elder Harold B. Lee
--"We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green." -- G.K. Chesterton
--“Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which even our perceptions are based. This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous.” --Jordan Peterson

And I found it to be an extremely valuable piece of work in itself. I especially like the bolded bit above.

Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are my two favorite (non-Latter-day Saint) lay theologians.  I also enjoy their popular writings (Narnia from Lewis, and Father Brown from Chesterton).  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

48 minutes ago, Nofear said:

How about pink then? Or how the yellow of this 🍋? Your monitor/screen is physically incapable of producing yellow wavelengths of light and yet we perceive it as yellow.

The perception of color (and perception in general) is a fascinating topic that leads one down a rabbit hole to a wondrous land. A bit off topic though.

 

Edited to add this link since the pink comment isn't all that apparent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuPF6JtWdw

Yellow: evoked by light with a dominant wavelength of roughly 570–590 nm. But in RGB there is no yellow, as you point out, and since the monitor's LED cells are composed of only red, green and blue-emitting diodes, of course yellow is only simulated.

As for pink, in RGB hexadecimal coding it is #FFC0CB (255, 192, 203). But of course there are different shades of it, as the proportions can be varied.

Don't worry, as a retired software developer with web-design experience, I'm quite aware of all this. And SciShow is one of my favorite YouTube channels! Here's another one about color that is fascinating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngd57zinWBU

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Stargazer

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

OK, here you go:

"Blue: The eye perceives blue when observing light with a dominant wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres."

There's the definition.  

Perception is not what the eye does, but what the brain does. The eye has cells that are activated, etc.  What that activation means is for the brain to work out. 

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perception is not what the eye does, but what the brain does. The eye has cells that are activated, etc.  What that activation means is for the brain to work out. 

Yes, of course. But the brain ain't got enough to work with if the eyes don't do their part. For example, most color-blindness is caused by defects in the eye's cone cells.

"The most common cause of color blindness is an inherited problem in the development of one or more of the three sets of the eyes' cone cells, which sense color. Among humans, males are more likely to be color blind than females, because the genes responsible for the most common forms of color blindness are on the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so a defect in one is typically compensated for by the other." - From Wikipedia

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, of course. But the brain ain't got enough to work with if the eyes don't do their part. For example, most color-blindness is caused by defects in the eye's cone cells.

"The most common cause of color blindness is an inherited problem in the development of one or more of the three sets of the eyes' cone cells, which sense color. Among humans, males are more likely to be color blind than females, because the genes responsible for the most common forms of color blindness are on the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so a defect in one is typically compensated for by the other." - From Wikipedia

That has nothing to do with what colour means though as an experience of perception. The brain can even experience color without the eyes being involved.*****No brain though, nothing is being perceived no matter how active those cones and rods are. 

****one of the most vivid perceptions of color I have ever experienced was during a ketamine treatment. My eyes were blindfolded at the time. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That has nothing to do with what colour means though as an experience of perception. The brain can even experience color without the eyes being involved.*****No brain though, nothing is being perceived no matter how active those cones and rods are. 

****one of the most vivid perceptions of color I have ever experienced was during a ketamine treatment. My eyes were blindfolded at the time. 

I'll have to grant you that, Calm! 

But I still need my eyes to get around visually, regardless of whether my brain is the master visualizer!  

Had heard of ketamine, by name only, so just looked it up. Interesting substance! It's regulated severely, though, so I guess I won't be trying it out casually.