Radical Orthodoxy a Manifesto

[pogi]

I think I vaguely remember this being discussed when it came out, but the timing couldn't have been worse in the winter of 2020 with the rise of Covid taking center stage and overshadowing all other discussions.    I also couldn't seem to find any threads about this in the search function, so maybe my memory is failing me.  If this was previously discussed, I think enough time has passed that we can revisit this topic.

For those who don't know, this manifesto is a document authored by Nathaniel Givens (son of Terryl and Fiona Givens), Jeffrey Thayne, and J. Max Wilson.  I only found it when researching "radical orthodoxy" philosophy/theology that some in other faith traditions have embraced, after @mfbukowski got me sniffing down that road.     This Latter-day Saint Manifesto bares some similarities to this other form of radical orthodoxy which has been around since the mid-90's, and obviously bares the same name, but I don't see any reference to the work and history of radical orthodoxy in this LDS manifesto.   Is the common use of the name "radical orthodoxy" mere coincidence, or were these authors influenced by this other philosophy which borrows from postmodernist ideas?

The timing of my discovery of this document couldn't have been more serendipitous as it outlines many of the ideals/ideas that I have been clumsily trying to explain in my desire to influence culture from within the church away from the polarizing black and white ways of thinking and being more open to alternate voices and ideas, more tolerant of those who have questions, more open about acknowledging the human/fallible side of religion and mistakes that are made, and less dogmatic in our lives - while being grounded in faithful reverence to the gospel, sustaining our leaders, and without getting entangled in the mistakes and looking forward with hope.    It seems that many here share this same hope and vision while others have expressed serious concern about such a nuanced and centrist approach to the church.

My initial cringe reaction to the title softened as I read their explanation.  To me, "radical orthodoxy" reads as "extreme" or "ultra-orthodox".  Haredi Judaism came to mind.  The word "orthodoxy" itself is something that I relate less and less to as I feel more affiliation with the concepts of orthopraxy, while still holding onto some orthodoxy.  Generally speaking, orthopraxy better describes my approach to faith.  So, neither identifying as a "radical' or an "orthodox" member, it was a big-turn off for me, initially.

Here is their explanation for the title:

Quote

First, let me say something about the title. We explored a lot of different options before settling on the words “radical orthodoxy” to describe the ideas we have tried to articulate.

The word radical is complex, with a rich, symbolic etymology. It has deep roots– in fact, it is derived from the Latin word rādix which literally means “root.”

Over time, words evolve meanings beyond their etymological origins, and in Modern English, the word radical usually refers to a desire for change— not just superficial change, but change at a fundamental, root level. Radical can also refer to something basic or intrinsic. Sometimes it means far-reaching or thorough. In chemistry it refers to atoms, ions, or molecules that have unpaired electrons, which makes them highly reactive. When it is paired with an ideology, radical can sometimes mean extreme. And most people also recognize it as a popular slang term roughly equivalent to “excellent!” or “awesome!”

The word orthodoxy comes from the Ancient Greek roots ὀρθός (orthós), meaning “correct,” and δόξα (dóxa) meaning “way or belief.” So it literally refers to correctness in doctrine or belief. In a religious context it usually refers to conformity to established or accepted beliefs.

By putting these two words together, we intentionally create a paradox. How can you desire deep change while still conforming to established doctrines?

Throughout our lives we encounter this struggle between extremes: change vs statis, conformity vs nonconformity, progress vs conservation. Radical orthodoxy is about navigating the space in between.

That explanation definitely helped soften my reaction, but I note that it gives no nod to the history of radical orthodoxy in other traditions.  That is curious to me. 

It appears the article has predictably drawn the scorn of more traditional orthodox "defenders" of the faith, pointing to "apostacy from within" and questioning it as a "manifesto from progressives" and shaming many of the signatories as progressive and framing them in an adversarial light.  Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!  I am all too familiar with this knee-jerk traditionalist reaction from members to those who gravitate more toward the center and want to influence change in culture from within.  Curiously, I saw some names on the document that surprised me as I always considered them more conservative and traditionalist members, including our very own Scott Lloyd (listed as an "additional supporter") and Daniel Peterson - a signatory.   Among other notable names are Terryl and Fiona Givens.

Here is the website with the manifesto, which includes other supportive articles/videos and a list of signatories:

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

I am incredibly happy to see that I am not alone.  What are your thoughts on the manifesto?  Has it had any impact in the church, or is it already forgotten?   

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[Duncan]

Looking at he list of people some of them I wouldn't see as "progressive" I see them as regressive. I don't know what the point of this is though, what do they hope to accomplish? I listened to a podcast from a former GA and he said that some of the best advice he ever received was from Pres. Packer, who told him to "keep them in the pioneering spirit" Meaning , when he goes out to tiny little branches, districts, don't burden them with bureaucracy or complicate the church for them. I don't see this manifesto and helping anybody, certainly not when you are trying to establish or reestablish the church in mostly post covid times.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Looking at he list of people some of them I wouldn't see as "progressive" I see them as regressive. I don't know what the point of this is though, what do they hope to accomplish? I listened to a podcast from a former GA and he said that some of the best advice he ever received was from Pres. Packer, who told him to "keep them in the pioneering spirit" Meaning , when he goes out to tiny little branches, districts, don't burden them with bureaucracy or complicate the church for them. I don't see this manifesto and helping anybody, certainly not when you are trying to establish or reestablish the church in mostly post covid times.

I was thinking the same.  

Ok, lots of nice words but what does this look like in practice for the average member struggling to do their ministering visits or trying not to lose their will to live with a difficult calling teaching in primary?  How does it strengthen people's conversion to the gospel?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think I vaguely remember this being discussed when it came out, but the timing couldn't have been worse in the winter of 2020 with the rise of Covid taking center stage and overshadowing all other discussions.    I also couldn't seem to find any threads about this in the search function, so maybe my memory is failing me.  If this was previously discussed, I think enough time has passed that we can revisit this topic.

For those who don't know, this manifesto is a document authored by Nathaniel Givens (son of Terryl and Fiona Givens), Jeffrey Thayne, and J. Max Wilson.  I only found it when researching "radical orthodoxy" philosophy/theology that some in other faith traditions have embraced, after @mfbukowski got me sniffing down that road.     This Latter-day Saint Manifesto bares some similarities to this other form of radical orthodoxy which has been around since the mid-90's, and obviously bares the same name, but I don't see any reference to the work and history of radical orthodoxy in this LDS manifesto.   Is the common use of the name "radical orthodoxy" mere coincidence, or were these authors influenced by this other philosophy which borrows from postmodernist ideas?

The timing of my discovery of this document couldn't have been more serendipitous as it outlines many of the ideals/ideas that I have been clumsily trying to explain in my desire to influence culture from within the church away from the polarizing black and white ways of thinking and being more open to alternate voices and ideas, more tolerant of those who have questions, more open about acknowledging the human/fallible side of religion and mistakes that are made, and less dogmatic in our lives - while being grounded in faithful reverence to the gospel, sustaining our leaders, and without getting entangled in the mistakes and looking forward with hope.    It seems that many here share this same hope and vision while others have expressed serious concern about such a nuanced and centrist approach to the church.

My initial cringe reaction to the title softened as I read their explanation.  To me, "radical orthodoxy" reads as "extreme" or "ultra-orthodox".  Haredi Judaism came to mind.  The word "orthodoxy" itself is something that I relate less and less to as I feel more affiliation with the concepts of orthopraxy, while still holding onto some orthodoxy.  Generally speaking, orthopraxy better describes my approach to faith.  So, neither identifying as a "radical' or an "orthodox" member, it was a big-turn off for me, initially.

Here is their explanation for the title:

That explanation definitely helped soften my reaction, but I note that it gives no nod to the history of radical orthodoxy in other traditions.  That is curious to me. 

It appears the article has predictably drawn the scorn of more traditional orthodox "defenders" of the faith, pointing to "apostacy from within" and questioning it as a "manifesto from progressives" and shaming many of the signatories as progressive and framing them in an adversarial light.  Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!  I am all too familiar with this knee-jerk traditionalist reaction from members to those who gravitate more toward the center and want to influence change in culture from within.  Curiously, I saw some names on the document that surprised me as I always considered them more conservative and traditionalist members, including our very own Scott Lloyd (listed as an "additional supporter") and Daniel Peterson - a signatory.   Among other notable names are Terryl and Fiona Givens.

Here is the website with the manifesto, which includes other supportive articles/videos and a list of signatories:

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

I am incredibly happy to see that I am not alone.  What are your thoughts on the manifesto?  Has it had any impact in the church, or is it already forgotten?   

 

My knee jerk reaction is that this is another 'us vs. them' solution that doesn't actually solve anything and in some ways makes things worse.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was thinking the same.  

Ok, lots of nice words but what does this look like in practice for the average member struggling to do their ministering visits or trying not to lose their will to live with a difficult calling teaching in primary?  How does it strengthen people's conversion to the gospel?

this is it, we have a high councilor who can barely read, nice guy and all but all this would be too much i'd imagine. These are the issues the church deals with and why we are counseled not to go off on "strange roads", the "plain road" in Nephi's lament in 2 Nephi 4 is hard enough!

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Looking at he list of people some of them I wouldn't see as "progressive" I see them as regressive.

Is that how you would describe Terryl and Fiona Givens - regressive?  Have you read their work?  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't know what the point of this is though, what do they hope to accomplish?

From the manifesto:

Quote

Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name, and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.

and this:

Quote

 

About

One of the inspirations for the Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto was the Agile Manifesto, which has been incredibly influential in the software development community.

The Agile Manifesto wasn’t created by computer scientists working at universities. It was created by a group of people who had worked in the business of software development for years and wanted to shift the way the industry approached the practice of software development.

Their manifesto set out some guiding principles that could be adopted by individuals or technology companies to help them produce better software by focusing on solving real-world customer problems, and by using a flexible, iterative process that did not try to anticipate too much in advance. Eventually there were books, and conferences, and papers, but initially it was just a statement meant to influence the culture of software development that was shared virally among software developers.

The goal we have for the Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto is similar: A public statement meant to influence the culture of the Church. It is a statement of principles that can be adopted by individual members of the Church, or Church-adjacent organizations, to encourage intellectual engagement with the Church and the Restored Gospel in ways that are faithful and flexible instead of either rigidly dogmatic or heretical and doubting.

Those who have added their names to the manifesto as signatories are expressing their public agreement with the principles of the manifesto as a framework for faithful intellectual engagement, and with the purpose of influencing culture.

There are many young members of the Church who feel the only options they have when it comes to the Gospel are to be rigidly dogmatic to the point of being fundamentalist or to reject the church’s teachings in favor of progressive political doctrines and intellectualism. The Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto provides not only an alternative, but a rallying point to which they can point and say: “This is what I believe.”

 

This is also described as the purpose:

Quote

 

Radical Orthodoxy is not a formal group like those just listed. It’s a rallying point for a decentralized group of Saints–many of whom do contribute to those groups–and one of our goals is to encourage greater enthusiasm and coordination among these alternate voices.

Our hope for the LDS Radical Orthodoxy manifesto and the movement as a whole is that we will be able to help build a supportive, creative, proactive community of alternate voices. We will have diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. We will not agree on every point. But we can be unified nonetheless in our discipleship of Christ and our fervent support His Restored Church.

 

I don't see what is "regressive" about this.  They hope to influence culture to create a healthy and safe space for centrists to believe.  I view it as I largely described in my post about a more enduring faith through disillusionment.    I view this as largely preventative of feeling like there are only two polar extreme choices and that more nuanced voices have a place in the church.  It is preventative of the damaging effects of disillusionment.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I listened to a podcast from a former GA and he said that some of the best advice he ever received was from Pres. Packer, who told him to "keep them in the pioneering spirit" Meaning , when he goes out to tiny little branches, districts, don't burden them with bureaucracy or complicate the church for them.

I am confused as to what you think this has to do with the manifesto.  Do you think this manifesto is not complimentary to the "pioneering spirit" in some way?  How and why? 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't see this manifesto and helping anybody, certainly not when you are trying to establish or reestablish the church in mostly post covid times.

I don't know what covid has to do with this.   I see this manifesto as potentially incredibly helpful to members like myself who feel like there is a place for them in a community who understands and doesn't shun them for not identifying with either polarity.  

 

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was thinking the same.  

Ok, lots of nice words but what does this look like in practice for the average member struggling to do their ministering visits or trying not to lose their will to live with a difficult calling teaching in primary?  How does it strengthen people's conversion to the gospel?

I see such attitudes which foster diversity of voices and culture within the church as preventative against the negative effects of black and white hyper-polarized culture that often leads to devastating consequences of disillusionment.  It believe such an attitude can only create a more enduring faith.   It will help us in our ministering by being more tolerant of alternative voices and more accepting and less shunning of those who don't fit into either polarized camp.  It will help those in their difficult callings by adhering to the core virtues it outlines.  

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My knee jerk reaction is that this is another 'us vs. them' solution that doesn't actually solve anything and in some ways makes things worse.

 I don't see this as an us vs them at all.  It is more like an attempt to create a supportive space of belonging for those who don't fit into the black and white "us vs them" polarities.    

Quote

 

Radical Orthodoxy is not a formal group like those just listed. It’s a rallying point for a decentralized group of Saints–many of whom do contribute to those groups–and one of our goals is to encourage greater enthusiasm and coordination among these alternate voices.

Our hope for the LDS Radical Orthodoxy manifesto and the movement as a whole is that we will be able to help build a supportive, creative, proactive community of alternate voices. We will have diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. We will not agree on every point. But we can be unified nonetheless in our discipleship of Christ and our fervent support His Restored Church.

https://nauvooneighbor.org/2020/11/24/radical-orthodoxy-and-alternate-voices/

 

The whole article is worth a read:

 

Quote

 

Radical Orthodoxy and Alternate Voices

This is part of an ongoing project to articulate and clarify the principles described in the Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto.

Speaking in the 1989 General Conference, Elder Oaks referred to “alternate voices” as:

those voices that speak of God, of his commandments, and of the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of his church…. without calling or authority.

This might sound like a bad thing, but in his talk, Elder Oaks stated that the Church is not opposed to alternate voices. As he put it, 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not attempt to isolate its members from alternate voices. Its approach, as counseled by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is to teach correct principles and then leave its members to govern themselves by personal choices.

Not only that, but Elder Oaks also made it clear that while some alternate voices have nefarious designs (such as the pursuit of power or money or the intent to deceive), there are also positive alternate voices:

Some alternate voices are those of well-motivated men and women who are merely trying to serve their brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion. Their efforts fit within the Lord’s teaching that his servants should not have to be commanded in all things, but “should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.”

This describes the intent of those of us who are participating in the LDS Radical Orthodoxy movement. We are not seeking to displace, supplant, subvert, or supersede the Church, but to “serve [our] brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion.”

These efforts are no less needed now than they were three decades ago. Speaking to the FairMormon Conference in 2019, Elder Craig C. Christensen thanked that group in particular and said that, when it comes to defending the Church, the Restoration and the Gospel, “we need your voices.” He stressed “the importance of faithful members engaging online.”

Another important point conveyed by both Elder Oaks in 1989 and Elder Christensen in 2019 is that the Church has to maintain a clear distinction between its own, formal pronouncements and the freelancing of its well-intended members. 

“The Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church and what is not,” Elder Oaks said. “Members of the Church are free to participate or to listen to any alternate voices they choose,” he went on, “but Church leaders should avoid official involvement, directly or indirectly.”

Not only is the separation between the Church and friendly, alternate voices necessary to preserve the clarity of the Church’s official teachings, as Elder Oaks stressed, but it also allows alternate voices to work more effectively. Elder Christensen pointed out that, although the Church works in tandem with formal groups like FAIR, Book of Mormon Central, and the Interpreter, “If you look like an extension of the Church, you wouldn’t have the power to do what you need to do.” 

Radical Orthodoxy is not a formal group like those just listed. It’s a rallying point for a decentralized group of Saints–many of whom do contribute to those groups–and one of our goals is to encourage greater enthusiasm and coordination among these alternate voices. 

Perhaps the most remarkable thing that Elder Christensen told the Fair Conference attendees was that, according to senior leadership within the Church, the vast majority of the faith-affirming messages on the Internet need to come from alternate voices: “partners [like Fair] and other individual members engaged in the conversation.”

Our hope for the LDS Radical Orthodoxy manifesto and the movement as a whole is that we will be able to help build a supportive, creative, proactive community of alternate voices. We will have diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. We will not agree on every point. But we can be unified nonetheless in our discipleship of Christ and our fervent support His Restored Church.

AuthorNathanielPosted onNovember 24, 2020CategoriesRadical Orthodoxy

 

 

5 thoughts on “Radical Orthodoxy and Alternate 

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

Search function only goes back one year.  Have to use google for anything further back.  I will see if I can find something.

[Calm]

And here it is…

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73341-radical-orthodoxy-a-manifesto/

 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that how you would describe Terryl and Fiona Givens - regressive?  Have you read their work?  

I wasn't thinking of them but some others and yes I have read their work

 

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

They hope to influence culture to create a healthy and safe space for centrists to believe.  I view it as I largely described in my post about a more enduring faith through disillusionment.    I view this as largely preventative of feeling like there are only two polar extreme choices and that more nuanced voices have a place in the church.  It is preventative of the damaging effects of disillusionment.

why can't we get that from local leaders or general leaders?

 

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't see what is "regressive" about this.  They hope to influence culture to create a healthy and safe space for centrists to believe.  I view it as I largely described in my post about a more enduring faith through disillusionment.    I view this as largely preventative of feeling like there are only two polar extreme choices and that more nuanced voices have a place in the church.  It is preventative of the damaging effects of disillusionment.

these are words and ideas that most people have never heard of so I don't see it being helpful. It presumes too that such a place doesn't already exists, how do they know that? have they been around the entire church? I doubt it

 

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am confused as to what you think this has to do with the manifesto.  Do you think this manifesto is not complimentary to the "pioneering spirit" in some way?  How and why? 

no I don't think it's beneficial to the pioneering spirit. I have a friend who attends in England it's technically a ward but it's really a branch, by the sounds of it they have a inifinite amount of need but finite resources. Why add more to their already burgeoning plate? 

 

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know what covid has to do with this.   I see this manifesto as potentially incredibly helpful to members like myself who feel like there is a place for them in a community who understands and doesn't shun them for not identifying with either polarity.  

 

you brought up covid. Fine by me, others have felt like that for years now. Some people aren't interested in politics

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I vaguely remember this being discussed when it came out, but the timing couldn't have been worse in the winter of 2020 with the rise of Covid taking center stage and overshadowing all other discussions.    I also couldn't seem to find any threads about this in the search function, so maybe my memory is failing me.  If this was previously discussed, I think enough time has passed that we can revisit this topic.

For those who don't know, this manifesto is a document authored by Nathaniel Givens (son of Terryl and Fiona Givens), Jeffrey Thayne, and J. Max Wilson.  I only found it when researching "radical orthodoxy" philosophy/theology that some in other faith traditions have embraced, after @mfbukowski got me sniffing down that road.     This Latter-day Saint Manifesto bares some similarities to this other form of radical orthodoxy which has been around since the mid-90's, and obviously bares the same name, but I don't see any reference to the work and history of radical orthodoxy in this LDS manifesto.   Is the common use of the name "radical orthodoxy" mere coincidence, or were these authors influenced by this other philosophy which borrows from postmodernist ideas?

The timing of my discovery of this document couldn't have been more serendipitous as it outlines many of the ideals/ideas that I have been clumsily trying to explain in my desire to influence culture from within the church away from the polarizing black and white ways of thinking and being more open to alternate voices and ideas, more tolerant of those who have questions, more open about acknowledging the human/fallible side of religion and mistakes that are made, and less dogmatic in our lives - while being grounded in faithful reverence to the gospel, sustaining our leaders, and without getting entangled in the mistakes and looking forward with hope.    It seems that many here share this same hope and vision while others have expressed serious concern about such a nuanced and centrist approach to the church.

My initial cringe reaction to the title softened as I read their explanation.  To me, "radical orthodoxy" reads as "extreme" or "ultra-orthodox".  Haredi Judaism came to mind.  The word "orthodoxy" itself is something that I relate less and less to as I feel more affiliation with the concepts of orthopraxy, while still holding onto some orthodoxy.  Generally speaking, orthopraxy better describes my approach to faith.  So, neither identifying as a "radical' or an "orthodox" member, it was a big-turn off for me, initially.

Here is their explanation for the title:

That explanation definitely helped soften my reaction, but I note that it gives no nod to the history of radical orthodoxy in other traditions.  That is curious to me. 

It appears the article has predictably drawn the scorn of more traditional orthodox "defenders" of the faith, pointing to "apostacy from within" and questioning it as a "manifesto from progressives" and shaming many of the signatories as progressive and framing them in an adversarial light.  Warning! Warning! Danger! Danger!  I am all too familiar with this knee-jerk traditionalist reaction from members to those who gravitate more toward the center and want to influence change in culture from within.  Curiously, I saw some names on the document that surprised me as I always considered them more conservative and traditionalist members, including our very own Scott Lloyd (listed as an "additional supporter") and Daniel Peterson - a signatory.   Among other notable names are Terryl and Fiona Givens.

Here is the website with the manifesto, which includes other supportive articles/videos and a list of signatories:

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

I am incredibly happy to see that I am not alone.  What are your thoughts on the manifesto?  Has it had any impact in the church, or is it already forgotten?   

 

Thanks for this!

I think the choice of the words "Radical Orthodoxy" was unfortunate since there is already a movement with the same name which eschews ideas like traditional "Eternal Truth" and affirms postmodernism, which grows out of William James' notion of "Radical Empiricism" which affirms religious experience as a instrument to discover and justify revelation as "true".  Some paradigms always "work", like say, the golden rule, but are adapted to given situations, so is that "eternal truth" or not?

I support their beliefs in Doctrine completely but know nothing of their epistemology or finally their metaphysics, AND unfortunately they seem to eschew philosophy so I don't know if they are even aware of the problems they could be causing.

Here's a layman's intro to MY brand of "Radical Orthodoxy".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

[Duncan]

One thing too is their doesn't seem to be any concrete action, it seems to have lived and died in two months in 2020, so if they don't believe it then why should anyone else?

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why can't we get that from local leaders or general leaders?

There is no reason why we can't.  But why should we rely on local leaders and general leaders to influence cultural change in the church?  

The following is a good article which explains why we need the general membership to step up to the plate - it sounds like those in leadership agree:

https://nauvooneighbor.org/2020/11/24/radical-orthodoxy-and-alternate-voices/

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

these are words and ideas that most people have never heard of so I don't see it being helpful. It presumes too that such a place doesn't already exists, how do they know that? have they been around the entire church? I doubt it

On one hand you say that people "have never heard of" these ideas, so they are not helpful, and on the other hand you argue that such a place of ideas already exists so it is unnecessary.   I am confused. 

I certainly feel lonely as a relativist Latter-day Saint who often feels unwelcome or shunned for expressing my deeply held beliefs and convictions which might not fit perfectly within the expected traditional norms within the church.  I would love a more tolerant and open culture that isn't adversarial to those who don't fit-in with the cookie cutter mold.   The point isn't that such people and ideas don't already exist in the church, the point of the manifesto is simply to create a greater enthusiasm around such ideas and a more supportive and proactive community of alternative voices.

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

no I don't think it's beneficial to the pioneering spirit. I have a friend who attends in England it's technically a ward but it's really a branch, by the sounds of it they have a inifinite amount of need but finite resources. Why add more to their already burgeoning plate? 

How is this adding more to their plate?  I don't understand.  Can you be specific about how the ideals outlined in the manifesto and supporting articles is contrary to the pioneering spirit?

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you brought up covid. Fine by me, others have felt like that for years now. Some people aren't interested in politics

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.  Politics?  I only mentioned covid to describe the unfortunate timing of this manifesto. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is more like an attempt to create a supportive space of belonging for those who don't fit into the black and white "us vs them" polarities.    

Quote

Does that supportive space have a place for those who do fit the black/white polarities?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was thinking the same.  

Ok, lots of nice words but what does this look like in practice for the average member struggling to do their ministering visits or trying not to lose their will to live with a difficult calling teaching in primary?  How does it strengthen people's conversion to the gospel?

Well, it provides a visible and eloquent rejoinder to to people who are trying to inject "activism" into the Church, particularly the kind that has coercive and divisive elements.  

I think this portion of the Manifesto may be the component that resonates the most with me:

Quote

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.

I think the Lord went to great lengths to restore His Church in the latter days, and to do so through prophets and apostles.  There are, I think, substantial efforts to drive wedges between the leaders of the Church and the everyday members, and I think such divisions are materially injurious to keeping covenants, maintaining fellowship with each other, and in general strengthening the cohesion and unity that ought to exist in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

My knee jerk reaction is that this is another 'us vs. them' solution that doesn't actually solve anything and in some ways makes things worse.

I don't think it is intended to foment a "versus" or adversarial mentality, but rather one of cohesion and unity.

I love my wife a lot.  I can express a desire to be more unified with her without resorting to an "'us vs. them' solution."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is no reason why we can't.  But why should we rely on local leaders and general leaders to influence cultural change in the church?  

The following is a good article which explains why we need the general membership to step up to the plate - it sounds like those in leadership agree:

https://nauvooneighbor.org/2020/11/24/radical-orthodoxy-and-alternate-voices/

because people lives in their locals not elsewhere, if something bad is happening in Singapore i'm quite sure they don't need you or more to fix, let the leaders handle it. On the blog it says this, "freelancing of its well-intended members. ", pass on that. The power to lead is also the power to mislead, which is why I said earlier I wouldn't trust some of the people on that list.

 

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

On one hand you say that people "have never heard of" these ideas, so they are not helpful, and on the other hand you argue that such a place of ideas already exists so it is unnecessary.   I am confused. 

it's because you've confused the two together. I am saying that perhaps their is a happy medium so that people aren't caught in a polarity-I didn't say it exists I said they are presuming that it doesn't exists and like most other business', create a problem and offer a solution. 

 

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I certainly feel lonely as a relativist Latter-day Saint who often feels unwelcome or shunned for expressing my deeply held beliefs and convictions which might not fit perfectly within the expected traditional norms within the church.  I would love a more tolerant and open culture that isn't adversarial to those who don't fit-in with the cookie cutter mold.   The point isn't that such people and ideas don't already exist in the church, the point of the manifesto is simply to create a greater enthusiasm around such ideas and a more supportive and proactive community of alternative voices.

two years in and they never achieved anything as their hasn't been really any movement on it so it's all in the past now. They gave up on it apparently.

 

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

How is this adding more to their plate?  I don't understand.  Can you be specific about how the ideals outlined in the manifesto and supporting articles is contrary to the pioneering spirit?

I don't want "competing voices" i want God's voice

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/27homer?lang=eng

 

Politics tend to divide people, especially covid. 

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for this!

I think the choice of the words "Radical Orthodoxy" was unfortunate since there is already a movement with the same name which eschews ideas like traditional "Eternal Truth" and affirms postmodernism, which grows out of William James' notion of "Radical Empiricism" which affirms religious experience as a instrument to discover and justify revelation as "true".  Some paradigms always "work", like say, the golden rule, but are adapted to given situations, so is that "eternal truth" or not?

I support their beliefs in Doctrine completely but know nothing of their epistemology or finally their metaphysics, AND unfortunately they seem to eschew philosophy so I don't know if they are even aware of the problems they could be causing.

Here's a layman's intro to MY brand of "Radical Orthodoxy".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

I agree that the name is unfortunate.  I wonder if it was just a coincidence or if they were influenced at all by the movement you speak of.  I see some similarities in ideas of creating a theology that is more open to diverse views (such as postmodernism).  I don't think they take any stance on epistemology or metaphysics, but want to create a community of "diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and interests" - and that they will "not always agree on every point" but are united in their support for a safe space for alternative voices - such as yours and mine.    I don't think think they eschew philosophy, rather they are eschewing the polarizing extremes of the right and left.  IT is not philosophy they have a problem with, it is the abandonment of fidelity to the gospel and church in embrace of secular philosophies, and the opposite extreme.

It sounds to me like they are trying to generate a healthy community and space within the church for people like you who preach non-traditional postmodernism and relativism but who maintain fidelity to the church, its leaders, and the gospel.    

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does that supportive space have a place for those who do fit the black/white polarities?

I think the idea is to influence greater tolerance of ideas and alternate voices within the church.  Naturally there will be resistance from these two extremes, but if they want to take part in these goals I am sure they will be welcome.  I think these polar people will naturally extricate  out of such a space.   I don't see this as an adversarial ("us vs them) approach to these polarities as much as it is a proactive approach to their own ideals.  As they say, they are more about upholding what they believe in and are for, then what they are against.  Anytime someone holds up a light, there will be resistance - not because they are not welcome to take part in that light. 

I don't think the point is to create a singular mono-culture within the church, rather to advocate for diversity of culture.  It is not us vs them approach.  It is more of an us and them approach - giving more choices for members who feel like there are precious few within the church.

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[The_Monk]

You think the Heartlanders and Rian Nelson represent "more traditional" defenders?! They're full-on LDS equivalents of Evangelical fundamentalists and young-earth creationists. They're about as fringe as you can get without leaving or being excommunicated. 

I wasn't remotely surprised to see e.g. Peterson and the Givens sign on to this. It was trying to represent a middle ground between the progressives on the one hand and the heartlander fundamentalists on the other. 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, The_Monk said:

You think the Heartlanders and Rian Nelson represent "more traditional" defenders?! They're full-on LDS equivalents of Evangelical fundamentalists and young-earth creationists. They're about as fringe as you can get without leaving or being excommunicated. 

Color me ignorant then.  I was not aware of who Rian Nelson is.  His tone and demeanor reflected the exact tone and demeanor of more traditional defenders I have encountered. 

15 minutes ago, The_Monk said:

I wasn't remotely surprised to see e.g. Peterson and the Givens sign on to this. It was trying to represent a middle ground between the progressives on the one hand and the heartlander fundamentalists on the other. 

I wasn't surprised to see Givens at all.  I was commenting surprise at seeing Scott Lloyd and Peterson.  Maybe I don't know Peterson well enough, but what I have seen of his personal encounters on-line with some who question has been less than inspiring to me.  From what little I know of him, I have always gotten the impression that his style aligns more with the following camp (which I also see in Scott Lloyd):

Quote

 

a fortress/bunker mentality that prizes uniformity and intensity: The World is out to get us, so we need to close ranks, build higher walls, and answer each "attack" with a devastating, demoralizing counterattack.

  https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/12/09/why-i-signed-the-radical-orthodoxy-manifesto/

 

That is exactly what radical orthodoxy is against. 

I don't think it was specifically against "heartlander fundamentalists", but was more about being open and willing to examine the traditional fences that exist within Mormonism and navigating the tension between change and tradition.  It also presses against the idea that all change within the church needs to come from the top-down approach.  

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that the name is unfortunate.  I wonder if it was just a coincidence or if they were influenced at all by the movement you speak of.  I see some similarities in ideas of creating a theology that is more open to diverse views (such as postmodernism).  I don't think they take any stance on epistemology or metaphysics, but want to create a community of "diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and interests" - and that they will "not always agree on every point" but are united in their support for a safe space for alternative voices - such as yours and mine.    I don't think think they eschew philosophy, rather they are eschewing the polarizing extremes of the right and left.  IT is not philosophy they have a problem with, it is the abandonment of fidelity to the gospel and church in embrace of secular philosophies, and the opposite extreme.

It sounds to me like they are trying to generate a healthy community and space within the church for people like you who preach non-traditional postmodernism and relativism but who maintain fidelity to the church, its leaders, and the gospel.    

Well thanks for that.   But they seem big on "truth" without a definition of what it means.

I am kind of surprised that the various Givens would be on the list- on the other hand one comes full circle in these things when terms like "eternal truth" get thrown around without definition.  As Rorty says, we know how to use the word correctly, but we don't need to define it.   Essentially for Rorty it means statements which are affirmed by a community of believers.  Sure I affirm the statements these folks suggest, or I would not be a member of the church.   In that sense everyone should sign it who is a member.

Was it an attempt somehow to co-opt the "cool name" they THOUGHT agreed with their position without knowing the origin of the title they chose?   I suppose it was just chosen as a name because it was "cool" without knowing the implications.

These are obviously wonderful members of the church, and defenders, I am just wondering if they know what they are talking about.

 

[The_Monk]

Here is a taste of Rian Nelson, posting for the FIRM Foundation.

 

The NevillNeville land blog tracks this lunacy. https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021/03/heartlanders-push-back-rian-nelson-conspiracy.html 

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 On the blog it says this, "freelancing of its well-intended members. ", pass on that. The power to lead is also the power to mislead, which is why I said earlier I wouldn't trust some of the people on that list.

Did you even consider the context of that quote?  It seems that you are intentionally ignoring that context and intention behind that quote.

Most apologists are freelancers and do not work for or speak for the church.   Are you suggesting that freelancing/apologetics is wrong and should be avoided, or that we should reject freelancers for the mere fact that they are freelancing?

What do you make of Elder Oaks approval of "freelancing".

Quote

Some alternate voices are those of well-motivated men and women who are merely trying to serve their brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion. Their efforts fit within the Lord’s teaching that his servants should not have to be commanded in all things, but “should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.”

It doesn't appear that you are genuinely reading and considering the message of the article.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

 I said they are presuming that it doesn't exists and like most other business', create a problem and offer a solution. 

CFR.  Where did they say it "doesn't exist".    They are not pretending to create something from nothing.   They are simply trying to foster, support, and further these ideas that already exist.  They want to give a broader voice to it - hence the "manifesto". 

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I don't want "competing voices" i want God's voice

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/27homer?lang=eng

I want God's voice to.  I personally hear it from the diversity of voices in the church and world.  The church acknowledges the diversity of source in God's word and counsels us to go out and find it in the diversity of voices - which you dismiss as "competing".  I find much to be complimentary in the diversity of perspectives and voices.  I see God in much of it.  But if you want to limit your source of God's word to the brethren, feel free.  But please not that the brethren have encouraged us to search within and without the church for His word, and not merely from the leadership.  

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Politics tend to divide people, especially covid. 

Please quit making this about politics and covid.  Enough already.  Take it elsewhere.  Don't pretend like that is my intention. 

[teddyaware]

8 minutes ago, The_Monk said:

Here is a taste of Rian Nelson, posting for the FIRM Foundation.

 

The NevillNeville land blog tracks this lunacy. https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021/03/heartlanders-push-back-rian-nelson-conspiracy.html 

It will be interesting to see if the moderators boot you off this thread for being political. A couple months ago I got booted off another thread for unintentionally doing far less.

Edited December 14, 2022 by teddyaware