Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto

[bluebell]

1 hour 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. 

And sometimes with the messages and objections, and the seeking of further light, there still is no revelation.  That's the only point that I was making.  

Quote

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. 

I never said differently.

Quote

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.

I didn't mean to imply you were saying the bolded because I didn't think you were.  Again, my only point was that the evidence suggests that while messages, objections, and desires can all influence when and why a prophet seeks the Lord's will on an issue, they don't cause revelation. 

The end of the priesthood ban was not the result of the objections or letters by members or a willing prophet.  If that's all that had been necessary then it would have ended with Pres. McKay.  The timing was the Lord's.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan 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. 

I suppose I could get behind that.  I think the church could certainly do such a thing but I don't think we could say that it happened/happens accidentally.

Quote

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. 

Not as I see it. 

Sure, there are a lot of situations where whatever mom or dad says goes because it's not convenient or possible to get the other's opinion on the matter before action needs to be taken.  Usually those situations are rare when parents know each other well and have been parenting together for a while.  Even in the absence of a directive on every issue each spouse can generally guess where the other is going to fall on any given topic.  But even in cases where an action has been directed by a parent and taken by a child that the other parent does not agree with, finding agreement after the fact is neither meaningless nor does it lessen the presentation of unity. 

On occasion my husband and I have had to tell our kids "yeah, I didn't agree with mom on that" or "Yeah, I didn't agree with dad on that" and explain why and how things will be different the next time a similar situation comes up.  

Quote

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. 

There is the difference between a rationalization and what a person means.  You can tell me that I'm rationalizing all you want but you can't tell me what I mean.  My interpretation of my beliefs will always be the correct interpretation.

Edited December 4, 2020 by bluebell

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan 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. 

I'll say that if the Church were to ever do that it could then no longer be the church of Jesus Christ.

I think of the church of Jesus Christ as if it is the wife and house of Jesus Christ, himself.  As his wife she has his authority to direct the affairs of his house and she doesn't need to wait until he commands her to do something in his house because it is her house too and he has given her his authority to run things, so to speak.  She just needs to be aware that if she goes too wild and does too many things that he does not approve of then he might give her a bill of divorcement and then she would no longer be his wife.

We need some way to explain what happened to what is now called the Catholic church.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Ahab

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We need some way to explain what happened to what is now called the Catholic church.

It's been called the Catholic Church for a very very long time...

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's been called the Catholic Church for a very very long time...

Yeah we know that too.

[mfbukowski]

Error

Edited December 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error.

I apologize to all, especially @Ahab for my grumpiness and un-Christlike behavior recently.

It's been a tough year for me, as for everyone, I am sure.   I think I need a vacation from this board for a while

Edited December 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Dan McClellan 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. 

Given the various factors that affect the exercise of agency, there are scopes within the “state of probation” where the Lord permits His servants (and us) to make independent decisions that He might make differently.  In such a case, there is still convergence of agency, within which a divergence of choice and action might occur, but not of agency.

Because of the space and time considerations (“days of probation”), convergence and divergence might also reflect a processes or journey, and not a final characteristic or destination as the end points would.

[MrShorty]

21 hours 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.

I find this an interesting point to highlight, because it seems to me that we have a pretty strong aversion to anything that looks like "bottom up" revelation in the Church. One can make that observation that such things were being said and published as incidental to the revelation, but it seems almost anathema to suggest that God was revealing His will to the brethren through these publications and discussions.

As it applies to the signers of the manifesto -- I wonder how they feel about "bottom up" revelation?

[Rain]

 

On 12/1/2020 at 2:51 PM, 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

 

On 12/1/2020 at 3:09 PM, 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. 

OK, this is still bothering me.  I finally gave it to my husband and said, "what do you think about this paragraph?"  He said well, "it's all good, but I don't think the word reduce is the word they want to use".

So if I am wrong on this please help me get this.

Quote

As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. 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.

So trying to say it in my own words...

Quote: As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world.

Me: We should be faithful to God's teachings in a contentious world.

Quote: This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes,

Me: This is sending us to dangerous extremes,

Quote: tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism

Me: These extremes are 1. enticing members to reduce their loyalty for traditions that may not be good

Quote: and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies.

Me: and 2. Abandoning faith for worldly philosophies.

If you look at the next paragraph they say:

Quote

On the one hand, those who replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas. This can lead them to declare that the Church is behind the times on moral and social issues. On the other hand, those who focus solely on conserving what we have already received are prone to conflate human tradition with eternal truth. This can lead them to condemn any form of question-asking, faithful exploration, or subsequent revelation.

If we combine the two paragraphs:

As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce (conflating human tradition with eternal truth) and others to (replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas).

In other words the polarization is enticing saints stop conflating tradition with truth so much. 

Why would this be a temptation?  Wouldn't that be a good thing?  

Wouldn't they want to use the word "increase" instead of "reduce"?

 

Thanks @Vanguard for bringing it to my attention again.  🙂    

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 

 

OK, this is still bothering me.  I finally gave it to my husband and said, "what do you think about this paragraph?"  He said well, "it's all good, but I don't think the word reduce is the word they want to use".

So if I am wrong on this please help me get this.

So trying to say it in my own words...

Quote: As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world.

Me: We should be faithful to God's teachings in a contentious world.

Quote: This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes,

Me: This is sending us to dangerous extremes,

Quote: tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism

Me: These extremes are 1. enticing members to reduce their loyalty for traditions that may not be good

Quote: and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies.

Me: and 2. Abandoning faith for worldly philosophies.

If you look at the next paragraph they say:

If we combine the two paragraphs:

As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to hold fast to the revealed truths of the Restored Gospel in a polarized and contentious world. This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce (conflating human tradition with eternal truth) and others to (replace divine instruction with secular measures of progress risk relinquishing eternal truths for misguided worldly ideas).

In other words the polarization is enticing saints stop conflating tradition with truth so much. 

Why would this be a temptation?  Wouldn't that be a good thing?  

Wouldn't they want to use the word "increase" instead of "reduce"?

 

Thanks @Vanguard for bringing it to my attention again.  🙂    

I'm not reading the word reduce like you are.  I reading it more like the way that you might reduce a sauce while cooking.  As in they are saying that members are taking the idea of fidelity and reducing it (in other words, narrowing it to a specifically small focus) to mean that one must be loyal to all traditions or they aren't being loyal. 

I think the manifesto is saying that such a narrow (or reduced) definition of the word fidelity causes problems.

[Calm]

I am reading the “reduce” as simplify, narrow as well. 
 

As in ‘he reduced the complicated, nuanced argument  to a black and white straw man version’.

Using it as “decrease” took me a few times to even see. Interesting how different we can see the same thing. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Calm

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

I am reading the “reduce” as simplify, narrow as well. 
 

As in ‘he reduced the complicated, nuanced argument  to a black and white straw man version’.

Yes, that's a great way to explain it.