Jump to content

Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Ever since his talk, I have wished Pres. Oaks or someone would talk more about what it looks like to disbelieve something the Church teaches while remaining loyal to the Church.

I would point precisely to the many, many people who published their objections and who pressed Church leaders to question and to reconsider, including President Kimball's own son. We like to ignore them and pretend that significant changes in policies and even beliefs are just sudden products of revelation ex nihilo, but every one is a response to messages, requests, and concerns from members.

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

If your child is aware that one parent has said "do X" and the other parent has said, "do not do X," then yes, they are put in a position where they have to decide whose will to prioritize.  

Not really, because my husband and I would never knowingly put them in such a position.  So, should that occur, my child would just need to make us aware of the situation and then my husband and I would fix it.  But this is a situation (accidentally giving contradictory 'commands') that would never happen between Christ and His church so it's not really relevant to the topic but just an example of the imperfections of my analogy.

Quote

Which relies on you being inerrant in your execution of that ideal, just like the assumption that the Church's relationship with Christ's will is equally inerrant. Also, are you saying your kids are authorized to remove you from the parental loop? You're saying your husband can act unilaterally, but you can't. 

Sorry I wasn't more clear.  I assumed you were understand, when I said that my husband and I were equal, that the situation that I described could easily be reversed between us but the same "rules" would still apply. 

Quote

still comes across as a rationalization for treating the Church and Christ as coterminous. 

Only if one is determined to look at it in that way despite being told that that interpretation of the statement isn't correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I would point precisely to the many, many people who published their objections and who pressed Church leaders to question and to reconsider, including President Kimball's own son. We like to ignore them and pretend that significant changes in policies and even beliefs are just sudden products of revelation ex nihilo, but every one is a response to messages, requests, and concerns from members.

Wasn't this true for when David O. McKay was prophet as well, despite Pres. McKay feeling very strongly after praying about it that it was not time to reverse the priesthood ban, despite him wanting very much to do so?  

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I'm into multiverses these days. And again, without multiverses there is no exaltation.

Theologically, I find multiverses beyond problematic. No matter. Another topic for another time. ;)

Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

But this is a situation (accidentally giving contradictory 'commands') that would never happen between Christ and His church so it's not really relevant to the topic but just an example of the imperfections of my analogy.

So you're asserting inerrancy on the part of Church leadership.

Quote

Sorry I wasn't more clear.  I assumed you were understand, when I said that my husband and I were equal, that the situation that I described could easily be reversed between us but the same "rules" would still apply. 

Whether it's you or your husband, though, you're saying that if one disagreed with the instructions of another, they should not object to the instructions, but allow the instructions to stand, removing themselves from the parental loop in order to avoid the presentation of a lack of unity. That allows whichever parent gave the initial instruction to act unilaterally while denying it to the one who did not. 

Quote

Only if one is determined to look at it in that way despite being told that that interpretation of the statement isn't correct.

No, that's not remotely the only reason one might conclude someone else's defense of an ideological position comes across as a rationalization. I think you'd be surprised just how often we defend positions rooted more directly in our own tribalism and self-image than in a rational and dispassionate interrogation of the data.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Wasn't this true for when David O. McKay was prophet as well, despite Pres. McKay feeling very strongly after praying about it that it was not time to reverse the priesthood ban, despite him wanting very much to do so?  

Wasn't what true? That leadership was receiving a lot of messages? Absolutely. What relevance does that have?

Link to post
42 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@bluebell I agree that it is a bit of stretch, but that's why I wish that he or someone would explain how someone in the Church who wants to stay in the Church can disbelieve things and still be loyal.

I would say a desire to believe allows for disbelief in those points and loyalty to the Church. I think those are things that can be openly discussed in the right spirit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Wasn't what true? That leadership was receiving a lot of messages? Absolutely. What relevance does that have?

I'm speaking to the idea that it was the messages/objections that produced the revelation and the end of the ban. 

If all of those things existed with Pres. McKay, and he specifically felt the ban should not be ended despite wanting to end it and seeking confirmation to that end, then doesn't that call into question your statement that the end of the ban was in response to the objections?  Seeking the will of the Lord on the subject could be accurately described as a response to the objections I think, but the outcome of that seeking (the end of the ban) does not seem to have been connected to the objections, at least in regards to this issue.

But maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Link to post
56 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

So you're asserting inerrancy on the part of Church leadership.

No I'm saying that Christ doesn't ever accidentally give a commandment that contradicts something His prophets have already said.  

Quote

Whether it's you or your husband, though, you're saying that if one disagreed with the instructions of another, they should not object to the instructions, but allow the instructions to stand, removing themselves from the parental loop in order to avoid the presentation of a lack of unity. That allows whichever parent gave the initial instruction to act unilaterally while denying it to the one who did not. 

Uh no.  I specifically said that if I disagreed with my husband I would take it up with him, and we would discuss it together and come to an agreement, but that until that time, our kids had no authority to ignore his directions or disobey him.

Quote

No, that's not remotely the only reason one might conclude someone else's defense of an ideological position comes across as a rationalization.

Sorry If I confused you.  I didn't say that was the only reason that someone might conclude someone else was rationalizing.  I said that that was the only way someone else, after being specifically told that I'm not saying that, would still argue that I'm treating the Church and Christ as coterminous. 

Quote

I think you'd be surprised just how often we defend positions rooted more directly in our own tribalism and self-image than in a rational and dispassionate interrogation of the data.

No, that would not surprise me.  I think that's pretty much a given in these kinds of discussions, isn't it?  That everyone defends their biases to a certain extent.

Link to post
17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are you trying out some of those psychedelics we were talking about earlier in the thread..?

I may be soon.  Strange that you would ask me that question.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

if the interests or demands of those agents diverge, we may potentially be put in a position where we have to choose which one to prioritize and which one to subordinate.

Maybe you should define how you see loyalty. I don’t see loyalty as preventing me from choosing not to place that individual or institution’s needs as top priority all the time or preventing me from disagreeing, etc with it. It is about caring, contributing, and being committed to them and trying to help improve them when possible and needed. Of course I don’t see any need for Christ to improve, so there is that difference in my loyalty. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No I'm saying that Christ doesn't ever accidentally give a commandment that contradicts something His prophets have already said.  

Are you also saying the Church doesn't ever "accidentally" give a commandment that contradicts Christ's will? That's what I'm referencing. 

Quote

Uh no.  I specifically said that if I disagreed with my husband I would take it up with him, and we would discuss it together and come to an agreement, but that until that time, our kids had no authority to ignore his directions or disobey him.

But there are an awful lot of situations where a post-hoc agreement is meaningless because the thing has already been done. In situations like that, the desire not to undermine the presentation of unity facilitates unilateral action. 

Quote

Sorry If I confused you.  I didn't say that was the only reason that someone might conclude someone else was rationalizing.  I said that that was the only way someone else, after being specifically told that I'm not saying that, would still argue that I'm treating the Church and Christ as coterminous. 

Still doesn't follow, since anyone's denial of the implications of their own past statements can be a rationalization, which you acknowledge below is pretty much a given in these kinds of discussions. 

Quote

No, that would not surprise me.  I think that's pretty much a given in these kinds of discussions, isn't it?  That everyone defends their biases to a certain extent.

 

Link to post
19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is impossible to be loyal to Christ and not be loyal to his Church.  The whole logic that one can divorce one from the other is absurd. 

How could it be absurd if most of Christianity has no loyalty to "his Church" at all?  are you suggesting the Mormon Church is not "his Church"? Or are you suggesting most of Christianity can't possibly be loyal to Christ?  

Link to post
27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm speaking to the idea that it was the messages/objections that produced the revelation and the end of the ban. 

It was the messages and objections that catalyzed the seeking of further light on the issue. Without the messages and objections, there is no revelation. 

Quote

If all of those things existed with Pres. McKay, and he specifically felt the ban should not be ended despite wanting to end it and seeking confirmation to that end, then doesn't that call into question your statement that the end of the ban was in response to the objections? 

Not remotely. Pointing out that the revelation wouldn't have come in the absence of the concerns is in no way, shape, or form an assertion that if leadership receives a concern, they will automatically resolve it. 

Quote

 

Seeking the will of the Lord on the subject could be accurately described as a response to the objections I think, but the outcome of that seeking (the end of the ban) does not seem to have been connected to the objections, at least in regards to this issue.

 

There could be any number of reasons why someone refrains from doing something they really want to do. I'm not saying the end of the ban wasn't inspired, but there were certainly an array of factors in play.

Link to post
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Ever since his talk, I have wished Pres. Oaks or someone would talk more about what it looks like to disbelieve something the Church teaches while remaining loyal to the Church.

We do need more openness imo among members to demonstrate that highly committed to the Church individuals can still also have disagreements about how things are done to a certain extent. I do believe if disagreement is sufficient to start working against the missions of the Church as opposed to try and adapt your own approach to be within what you see as positive contributions to moving those missions forward, there is an absence of loyalty.  I think we have had a few examples on this board of individuals who have expressed strong disagreements with choices church leadership have made and who also remain loyal in my view to them and the Church in that they are still committed to doing their best for the Church and desire to be supportive of leadership.  I am not going to give out names though as that gets into personal judging imo. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

It was the messages and objections that catalyzed the seeking of further light on the issue. Without the messages and objections, there is no revelation. 

Not remotely. Pointing out that the revelation wouldn't have come in the absence of the concerns is in no way, shape, or form an assertion that if leadership receives a concern, they will automatically resolve it. 

There could be any number of reasons why someone refrains from doing something they really want to do. I'm not saying the end of the ban wasn't inspired, but there were certainly an array of factors in play.

Right.  Someone can really want the Lord to  say what to do in a situation without the Lord saying what to do at that time.  Or the Lord could just say it's not the right time to do something which someone else thinks the Lord should say to do.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

But the Church may also fail to submit its will to his grace, or "refuse the convergence."

My entire life has dedicated itself - sometimes it seems to be like a "drive"- to find the "best" religious paradigm out there, with beliefs to be modified as I see are needed. 

IF I believe that God has designed me with this drive inside me- and that is what I believe- I have a commandment-level duty to keep on questioning.

God would not have started me on this path if His intention for me was at some point to stop.

Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

My entire life has dedicated itself - sometimes it seems to be like a "drive"- to find the "best" religious paradigm out there, with beliefs to be modified as I see are needed. 

IF I believe that God has designed me with this drive inside me- and that is what I believe- I have a commandment-level duty to keep on questioning.

God would not have started me on this path if His intention for me was at some point to stop.

And of course there can be a difference between questioning, questioning belief and disbelief and how loyal one is to any of these over the others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My entire life has dedicated itself - sometimes it seems to be like a "drive"- to find the "best" religious paradigm out there, with beliefs to be modified as I see are needed. 

Out there?  Really? The "best religious paradigm" phrase sounds like what I and most other people I know refer to as "truth".  So you ARE looking for truth that is out there, as I figured you probably are, even though you like your Rorty quote so much.

You talk weird a lot of the time but I usually understand you even when you contradict yourself, I think.

Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I see no evidence of that :) Once was enough!

It would require all councils to unanimously refuse.

The Church of the Firstborn Is where the convergence is headed, and that is not going away.

I do not understand why we are to use our agency to find our own testimonies to simply rubber stamp what others allege to have received as revelation.

If I am commanded to receive my own testimony of every principle, at what point do I abandon that commandment to slavish acceptance of what others want me to do?

Do I follow what God tells ME or do I follow what they SAY God tells them?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Out there?  Really? The "best religious paradigm" phrase sounds like what I and most other people I know refer to as "truth".  So you ARE looking for truth that is out there, as I figured you probably are, even though you like your Rorty quote so much.

You talk weird a lot of the time but I usually understand you even when you contradict yourself, I think.

There was no contradiction there.  I am not going into it further with you.  "Out there" depends on what is "in here" and therefore has many meanings

Link to post
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There was no contradiction there.  I am not going into it further with you.  "Out there" depends on what is "in here" and therefore has many meanings

I hope this experience you've had with me has helped you to see what it is about you and your words that keeps us from agreeing with each other sometimes.  I know words have multiple meanings but this is a clear example of YOU not getting it.

Link to post
51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not understand why we are to use our agency to find our own testimonies to simply rubber stamp what others allege to have received as revelation.

So that we can know the truth of the things that they know are true.  A typical teacher/student relationship with the student seeking confirmation of the things the teacher teaches.  It just helps to get an idea to get the ball rolling.

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If I am commanded to receive my own testimony of every principle, at what point do I abandon that commandment to slavish acceptance of what others want me to do?

You don't.  You just do both at the same time when you are commanded to do something by someone you want to obey.

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do I follow what God tells ME or do I follow what they SAY God tells them?

When both are the same thing it really doesn't make any difference but you should find out if they are the same thing.

Link to post
54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not understand why we are to use our agency to find our own testimonies to simply rubber stamp what others allege to have received as revelation.

If I am commanded to receive my own testimony of every principle, at what point do I abandon that commandment to slavish acceptance of what others want me to do?

Do I follow what God tells ME or do I follow what they SAY God tells them?

I use my testimony to align my agency with God and others who presented the option to me, converging our agencies. I do that with every principle, but I prefer to say enticed and invited rather than commanded. In doing so, I follow what God tells me, converging with Him and others who have converged with Him. The convergence allows Him to entice and invite me through others by delegation to them or by them asking Him (as with Nephi in Helaman 10, "for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will," a form of converged agency). That is the world I've created, anyway! :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I prefer to say enticed and invited rather than commanded. 

Me too, or instructed.  Probably because I associate "command" as a gruff military-order statement by the kinds of "commanding officers" I think of in military boot camp type situations.  Come on peanut head!  Move it!  Move it!

God, our Father, is such a soft-spoken very kind and loving man though that his commands are usually very sweet.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...