Radical Orthodoxy a Manifesto

[manol]

@pogi, I applaud your persistent and thoughtful efforts to be "part of the solution".  I must admit it's not clear to me how "radical orthodoxy" spans the gap between the "iron rodders" and the "liahonas", to borrow terminology from yesteryear. 

(When I first read the article about "iron rodders" and "liahonas" in Sunstone(?), I identified as an iron rodder, but the article really helped me understand and appreciate the liahonas.)

In decades past I've championed this or that side of various divisive political issues, but never tried to create community between the two sides.  I was always focused on my side "winning".  I think what you are doing, and what the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto tries to do, is great in principle even if I don't totally "get it" at the practical level.

If it works, you run the risk of being accused of being a peacemaker. 

For now, I'm only accusing you of being a would-be peacemaker. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

I applaud your persistent and thoughtful efforts to be "part of the solution".  I must admit it's not clear to me how "radical orthodoxy" spans the gap between the "iron rodders" and the "liahonas", to borrow terminology from yesteryear. 

That is exactly what I was wondering, those labels springing to mind…

[CV75]

@MrShorty this addresses the conservatism/progressivism dichotomy (if there is one  ) you've been posting about in another thread. 

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, manol said:

@pogi, I applaud your persistent and thoughtful efforts to be "part of the solution".  I must admit it's not clear to me how "radical orthodoxy" spans the gap between the "iron rodders" and the "liahonas", to borrow terminology from yesteryear. 

(When I first read the article about "iron rodders" and "liahonas" in Sunstone(?), I identified as an iron rodder, but the article really helped me understand and appreciate the liahonas.)

In decades past I've championed this or that side of various divisive political issues, but never tried to create community between the two sides.  I was always focused on my side "winning".  I think what you are doing, and what the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto tries to do, is great in principle even if I don't totally "get it" at the practical level.

If it works, you run the risk of being accused of being a peacemaker. 

For now, I'm only accusing you of being a would-be peacemaker. 

For me ALMA 32 is the answer along with section 93.

Between those two, there ought to be little room for Fundamentalism

93:30

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

[CV75]

4 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?   

 

Just a comment on the 6th paragraph: the Holy Ghost cultivates the kind of humility it takes to successfully navigate the traditions of men (a mix of helpful and not) and divine revelation (always helpful). “Successfully” means in a manner that brings us to Christ and makes us more Christlike. In the process, one blessing is that our fundamental understanding expands. The approaches the spiritually reborn take to do this will vary, but always entail the three elements of Moroni's Promise: “…remember how merciful the Lord hath been [past],” “ponder” current and new revelation [explore], and “ask God ...if these things are not true [advance].”

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.  

That is interesting, because I see this "manifesto" as a type of grass-roots, as in non-top-down form of "activism" within the membership of the church in an attempt to influence change and "cultural improvement" within the church, towards a perceived greater good.  I know that "activism" has a negative connotation for you, but it doesn't need to take on that connotation.  It can simply mean to being proactively engaged in influencing a cause, idea, or change.   I see general members publishing a "manifesto" independent of the church and brethren in an effort to influence cultural change within the church as a fairly bold grass-roots activist move. 

The name "radical orthodoxy" itself speaks to this atavistic desire for "deep change" while "still conforming to established doctrines". 

This manifesto is not against progressivism, per se, but is against "unbridled progressivism".  I completely agree. 

Quote

 

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

Radical orthodoxy sees the great value of tradition, and the potential dangers of change. But it also sees the necessity of change and improvement, and the potential dangers of traditions that become an end in themselves.

It can recognize the need for change and improvement, and it can acknowledge mistakes and misinterpretations of the past, while still recognizing the value of tradition and culture, and at the same time trusting in the Lord and the prophets and apostles He has chosen to lead His Church.

 

This is all almost verbatim to the ideas I projected in my thread about a more enduring faith about recognizing a need for cultural change and a healthy space to acknowledge mistakes, while maintaining fidelity to the faith - which is why I was so happy to see that I am not alone in my desires and efforts. 

I hope this manifesto gives you a better idea of what I am about.  It articulates my ideas and vision well.  I am kind of saddened that it seems to have lost steam though. 
 

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

I would be very surprised if they view "truth" in the same way that you or I do.  But, then again, I would be surprised if any in church leadership hold the same relativistic views of truth that you and I hold - so I don't see any need to dismiss their general efforts simply because they espouse a different philosophy of "truth".  I don't see this manifesto as advocating for any specific philosophy of truth, I am just happy to see that there are people willing to create and advocate for a healthy space for such views.  

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, The_Monk said:

Evangelical fundamentalists

Now there is an interesting intermingling of terms! I have no more of an idea of what an Evangelical fundamentalist is, than I would have about what an LDS fundamentalist is? They seem to be two different kinds of plants from the same roots. In my world, one is either a Fundamentalist or an Evangelical and the two will not see eye to eye on very much. . . kind of like the LDS church member and the Mormon fundamentalist.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, manol said:

@pogi, I applaud your persistent and thoughtful efforts to be "part of the solution".  I must admit it's not clear to me how "radical orthodoxy" spans the gap between the "iron rodders" and the "liahonas", to borrow terminology from yesteryear. 

(When I first read the article about "iron rodders" and "liahonas" in Sunstone(?), I identified as an iron rodder, but the article really helped me understand and appreciate the liahonas.)

In decades past I've championed this or that side of various divisive political issues, but never tried to create community between the two sides.  I was always focused on my side "winning".  I think what you are doing, and what the Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto tries to do, is great in principle even if I don't totally "get it" at the practical level.

If it works, you run the risk of being accused of being a peacemaker. 

For now, I'm only accusing you of being a would-be peacemaker. 

Thanks for your perspective.

I don't perceive that this document is attempting to "span the gap" per say.  Rather, I see it as attempting to influence a culture within the church where it is safe to navigate the gap.  It is about allowing room for faithful middle-grounders.  I don't perceive the gap and polarities they are speaking about in terms of "iron rodders" and "Liahona's" however.  I see it in terms of unbridled progressives and doubters who are actively adversarial to the church, and the "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" type of mentality. 

Such polarity, uniformity, and tribalism makes it a terribly unsafe place for those who don't feel like they belong to either tribe.  You get attacked from both sides and unfortunately such black and white mentality and polarities leads to abandonment of faith all-together when faced with disillusionment, or those who try and maintain activity but in silence of their true feelings out of fear of expressing themselves.

Practically speaking, I think the point is just to create a voice for those who are trying to navigate the gap and tensions in a more nuanced but faithful way.  I think it is trying to let people know "you are not alone".   That awareness is powerful and is always helpful.   It is a "rallying cry" in an attempt to inspire "greater enthusiasm" and "support" and "proactive community of alternate voices". 

Cultural change can only start with voices.  This is just one brick in that wall of cultural change.  I don't know how much impact it has or will have, but I support them lifting their voices and letting their lights shine. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

For a small group of people in both camps who are aware of each other, that could be the case. But for the other 99% of members?  I would really doubt it does anything much.  I don't really disagree with anything in the manifesto; I just don't see the purpose of it except to delineate the line between the two groups and advocate for a specific side of the line.

Quote

 

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

 

Agreed.  But I don't think this manifesto does a single thing to stop any of that from happening.  This came out two years ago right?  Can we point to any positive impact or change that it helped create?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

It seems like it's intended to speak out against those members who the manifesto people believe are doing or believing things the manifesto people don't agree with.  As far as its purpose is to oppose believing Latter-day Saints who don't agree with the manifesto, I see that as "us vs. them" statement.  Not a statement on cohesion and unity.

Edited December 14, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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.  

 

How is the manifesto going to achieve all of that?  Especially when the vast majority of members will have no idea it exists.  What positive things have the manifesto been able to achieve over the last two years even?

Quote

 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. 

From my perspective, as far as the manifesto creates an "us," and exists to speak out against the beliefs or practices of "them," it very much creates an "us vs. them" dichotomy with no real benefit to the membership of the church as a whole.

[2BizE]

Is this manifesto the beginning of a split between those members who want a more conservative and traditional /spiritual approach and those who want a more mainstream approach?

Perhaps Hasidic Mormons?

Edited December 14, 2022 by 2BizE

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is the manifesto going to achieve all of that? 

I don't think the authors have any notion that this document will act as the solution to the problems of a polarized world and church.   I think its purpose was simply to be a motivating call for change.   It is just adding its influence and voice to the church.  That is how culture changes - voice by voice, until there are enough agreeing voices to be considered a "culture".

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Especially when the vast majority of members will have no idea it exists.  What positive things have the manifesto been able to achieve over the last two years even?

How effective it has been is a whole other story.  It appears that it has had little influence.   That is not to say that its purpose and ideas are flawed. 

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, as far as the manifesto creates an "us," and exists to speak out against the beliefs or practices of "them," it very much creates an "us vs. them" dichotomy with no real benefit to the membership of the church as a whole.

If a polarized world and church is the "them" where there are very few spaces of a more faithful middle-ground, I am glad at the attempt to create a safe space for the rest of "us".  Anytime a light, an idea, a moral, an ethic is lifted up, it creates a tension with those voices who disagree.  That is unavoidable.  The idea I see is to create more safe and faithful spaces within the church to exist.  I don't see that as bad.  Their efforts don't seem to have been very effective, but I appreciate their efforts none-the-less.

It is interesting how time changes perspective.  I noted that in the original thread about this manifesto, your original knee-jerk reaction was to say "I read that last week and really liked it", but in your response here you see it as potentially "making things worse".  This is not a criticism, just an observation.   I certainly align more with your first reaction, but who knows, maybe time will eventually have the same effect on me as it has on you.  

Edited December 14, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

2 hours 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 

Meldrum is on the same page but tries to make his conspiracies sound more respectable. Meldrum’s “Earth is actually full of water” nonsense is no less nutty but he dresses it up as a competing model with “evidence” and sells pseudoscientific books. They always involve scientists ignoring something (that they don’t actually ignore) and that this model is the truth. They are all conspiracy nuts.

[The Nehor]

Reading the manifesto it seems to use some of the same reasoning as the modern “enlightened centrist” and is long on staking out a position in between two others, has principles that are mostly not objectionable to either, and doesn’t have much meaning to it all. If I were to adopt allegiance to this what change? 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

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.  

That is interesting, because I see this "manifesto" as a type of grass-roots, as in non-top-down form of "activism" within the membership of the church in an attempt to influence change and "cultural improvement" within the church, towards a perceived greater good. 

But not with "coercive and divisive elements."

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know that "activism" has a negative connotation for you, but it doesn't need to take on that connotation. 

These days, I think the connotation is pretty much baked in.  And in any event, I think the concept is, in the main, incompatible with discipleship.  My thinking on this has been substantially influenced by a few factors:

First, this 1987 article by Elder Oaks, entitled "Criticism."  I it's 35 years old, yet as timely and relevant now as it was when first published.  I just don't see any meaningful form of what I typically think of as "activism" as being congruent to the counsel in this article.  More to the point, this counsel is not just Elder Oaks' personal opinion or say-so.  He rather heavily documents his points using various scriptures and quotes from prophets and apostles.

Second, we have seen a variety of "activists" do their "activism" thing pertaining to - which is to say publicly and adversarially arrayed against - the Church.  Kate Kelly.  Bill Reel.  Sam Young.  The results have been pretty bad.

Third, Bro. Ahmad Corbitt has recently spoken eloquently on "Activism vs. Discipleship."  His comments were carried in the Church News, were presented at a Church-sponsored event, and I think ought to be generally construed as reflecting the position taken by the Brethren (not much of a stretch, really).

From Bro. Corbitt's remarks:

Quote

Today, I would like to address an especially effective tactic Satan is using to blind and mislead the young, those transitioning from other religious traditions and cultures, and even long-time and life-time members of the Lord’s restored church. In my humble view, it is one of the great mists of darkness of our time. I speak of our enemy’s effort to transform disciples of Jesus Christ into activists towards or against the Lord’s church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – and its leaders. 

I think this is a valid concern.

Quote

 It is a three-step maneuver that is genius in its simplicity and effectiveness: (1) focus the rising generation and the valiant generally away from the doctrine of Christ and onto real or imagined unfairness or injustice in the Lord’s church and the imperfections of its leaders; (2) use this shift in focus to stir up feelings of disillusionment, annoyance, resentment, anger and hatred toward church policies, declarations, proclamations, principles, doctrines and eventually leaders; and (3) manipulate these negative impulses to instigate the use of worldly or secular activism or advocacy rather than the doctrine of Christ to effect change in the Kingdom of God. 

"Worldly or secular activism or advocacy rather than the doctrine of Christ to effect change in the Kingdom of God."

Yep.

Is there such a thing as "activism" that has ever been endorsed or encouraged by the leaders of the Church?  I think not.  To the contrary, the points raised by Elder Oaks pretty much preclude such a suggestion.

Back to Bro. Corbitt:

Quote

What do I mean by activism toward the Church? “Activism” has been defined as “the policy or action of using (campaigning or) vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change”5 “especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.”6
...
6 Merriam-Webster online 

I think pretty much everyone has this basic definition in mind when they think of the word "activism."

We don't "campaign" in the Church of Jesus Christ.  It's just not part of the plan.  If activism/campaigning seems to contravene how we are supposed to behave and interact with each other.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

It can simply mean to being proactively engaged in influencing a cause, idea, or change. 

I suppose.  But as I see it, the problematic ingredients of "activism" in the Church include such things as publicity and coercion (using pressure tactics, rather than reasoning, to persuade), adversarialness (again, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Bill Reel), self-aggrandizement, disregard of or contempt for stewardship, evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed, attempted usurpation, and so on. 

As Kathleen Flake so aptly said regarding questions about the Church's finances: "The alleged problem is not about financial malfeasance, 'it’s about competing views of what should be done with Church money and who gets to say so.' ... 'In other words,' Flake concludes, 'this is a power struggle...'"  That is how I see most instances of "activism" in the Church.  It just doesn't work.

There is yet another common component of activism which I find distasteful: opportunism.  There is an old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt."  Put another way: "Hey, I'm a member of the Church, which means I am at liberty to publicly disparage it, its leaders (particularly these guys - blech), its members, the whole kit n' kaboodle."

I think this phenomenon is hard for self-appointed "activists" to avoid.  Again, look at how Kate Kelly behaved.  Bill Reel.  Sam Young.  They all traded on their association with the Church as some sort of carte blanche to publicly vilify and excoriate it (and, more emphatically, its leaders).  I have a very low opinion of such antics.  

I have no qualms with loud and noisy adversarial "activism" in terms of politics.  That's part of the game.  I have a very different view when it comes to family and church.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see general members publishing a "manifesto" independent of the church and brethren in an effort to influence cultural change within the church as a fairly bold grass-roots activist move. 

I don't see it as "activist."  I don't think the authors would cop to that.  I also don't think that Richard L. Bushman or the Hales would characterize their efforts as "activism" either.

"Activism" pretty much always entails the problematic attributes noted above (publicity, coercion, pressure tactics, adversarialness, self-aggrandizement, disregard of or contempt for stewardship, evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed, attempted usurpation).  I don't see any of that in the Manifesto.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

The name "radical orthodoxy" itself speaks to this atavistic desire for "deep change" while "still conforming to established doctrines". 

From the Manifesto: 

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.

Please note the "fidelity to ... the Lord's authorized representatives" bit.  The Brethren have been pretty clear in rejecting the whole "loyal opposition" thing:

Elder Oaks in 2016:

Quote

The Church in its divine mission and we in our personal lives seem to face increasing opposition today. Perhaps as the Church grows in strength and we members grow in faith and obedience, Satan increases the strength of his opposition so we will continue to have “opposition in all things.”

Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies—“the loyal opposition.” However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not (see Matthew 26:24).

Elder Ballard in 2000:

Quote

However, in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a “loyal opposition.” One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.

Elder Faust in 1993:

Quote

In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God.

Free discussion and expression are encouraged in the Church. Certainly the open expressions in most fast and testimony meetings, or Sunday School, Relief Society, and priesthood meetings attest to that principle. However, the privilege of free expression should operate within limits. In 1869, George Q. Cannon explained the limits of individual expression:

“A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities of the Church was apostasy. … We replied that … we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term” (Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, 2:276–77).

Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

I have a hard time conceptualizing a form of "activism" that avoids styling itself as (or becoming) "loyal opposition," avoids contravening Elder Oaks' 1987 counsel, and so on.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This manifesto is not against progressivism, per se, but is against "unbridled progressivism".  I completely agree. 

Sounds good.  But again, I don't think this Manifesto fits within the rubric of "activism."  YMMV.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is all almost verbatim to the ideas I projected in my thread about a more enduring faith about recognizing a need for cultural change and a healthy space to acknowledge mistakes, while maintaining fidelity to the faith - which is why I was so happy to see that I am not alone in my desires and efforts. 

I hope this manifesto gives you a better idea of what I am about.  It articulates my ideas and vision well.  I am kind of saddened that it seems to have lost steam though. 

Well, maybe you could work with them to pick it up again.

I recognized several of the signatories' names.  They seemed to like the sentiment.  But I wonder if the authors questioned just how far they could go with it, or if they could go much further at all.

I think there are a number of good "grass-roots" efforts going on: FAIR, Interpreter, Saints Unscripted, Book of Mormon Central, Doctrine & Covenants Central, Pearl of Great Price Central.  But these generally focus more on doctrine than on "culture."  Of these, I think Saints Unscripted gets the closest to what you seem to have in mind.  Have you thought of trying to emulate them to some extent?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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."

It seems like it's intended to speak out against those members who the manifesto people believe are doing or believing things the manifesto people don't agree with. 

Okay.  I don't see that.  

If I encourage other Latter-day Saints to scrupulously obey the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom, I don't see that effort as being adversarial ("versus") to people who have chosen to disregard those commandments.

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as its purpose is to oppose believing Latter-day Saints who don't agree with the manifesto, I see that as "us vs. them" statement.  Not a statement on cohesion and unity.

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For a small group of people in both camps who are aware of each other, that could be the case. But for the other 99% of members?  I would really doubt it does anything much.  I don't really disagree with anything in the manifesto; I just don't see the purpose of it except to delineate the line between the two groups and advocate for a specific side of the line.

Who is on the other side of this line, do you think?

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

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.

Agreed.  But I don't think this manifesto does a single thing to stop any of that from happening. 

The Starfish Principle may be in play.  

I have been teaching in my ward's Primary for several years now.  There are times when I try to think back to lessons from my childhood, and I often draw a blank.  As a child I attended church pretty much every week, but they blend together in my memory, or else I was zoned out for many of the lessons, or the lessons were not particularly memorable, and so on.  And yet cumulatively, they had a real impact on me.

Perhaps the Manifesto hasn't had a widespread impact.  I'm okay with that.  Most of us and our efforts fit into that category.  Virtually none of us will be remembered much, or at all, 100 years from now.  But that shouldn't stop us from making small, day-to-day efforts to encourage and uplift each other.

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This came out two years ago right?  Can we point to any positive impact or change that it helped create?

We could ask the signatories, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Is this manifesto the beginning of a split between those members who want a more conservative and traditional /spiritual approach and those who want a more mainstream approach?

Perhaps Hasidic Mormons?

Not likely as I have heard the same [is this/this is the beginning of a split/schism?] said for many decades…with Liahonas/Iron Rodders or Letter/Spirit of the Law or Chapel/Internet Mormons, etc.  There are other divisions I can’t remember.  Haven’t seen a spilt occur any of those times no matter how convinced anyone was it was going to happen or no matter how gleeful they were. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These days, I think the connotation is pretty much baked in.  And in any event, I think the concept is, in the main, incompatible with discipleship.  My thinking on this has been substantially influenced by a few factors:

First, this 1987 article by Elder Oaks, entitled "Criticism."  I it's 35 years old, yet as timely and relevant now as it was when first published.  I just don't see any meaningful form of what I typically think of as "activism" as being congruent to the counsel in this article.  More to the point, this counsel is not just Elder Oaks' personal opinion or say-so.  He rather heavily documents his points using various scriptures and quotes from prophets and apostles.

Second, we have seen a variety of "activists" do their "activism" thing pertaining to - which is to say publicly and adversarially arrayed against - the Church.  Kate Kelly.  Bill Reel.  Sam Young.  The results have been pretty bad.

Third, Bro. Ahmad Corbitt has recently spoken eloquently on "Activism vs. Discipleship."  His comments were carried in the Church News, were presented at a Church-sponsored event, and I think ought to be generally construed as reflecting the position taken by the Brethren (not much of a stretch, really).

I don't have time to respond to all right now, but I disagree that activism connotes "coerciveness and divisiveness".   I think activism is part of being a disciple of Christ - to be anxiously engaged in a good cause of our own free will.   I see you very much as an freelance activist for the church.  I see all apologetics in that light.  Activism isn't only alive in the progressive left.  I see it from both extremes expressed in very corrosive measures.   Activism is not bad in and of itself.  We need to retain the spirit of activism and detangle it from the corrosive elements of extremism, contention, polarization, and coerciveness.    You are simply pointing to activists against the church without recognizing that they are a mirror of opposing forces but of the opposite extreme.  They are of the same contentious divisive polarizing spirit of corrosive activism.  I want a different road.  A different path.  An activism that does not seek to demean, defame, or belittle differing voices and viewpoints, but seeks to uphold the voice of God as expressed in the diversity of perceptions of the elephant.  A faith promoting activism that embraces diversity of perspective and ideas and seeks to create a safe place for such voices.      There are activists for peace.  There are political activists from every angle and side.  There are religious activists (you).  There are social activists - some more coercive than others.  Martin Luthe King Jr. was a social activist.  There are so many examples and historical figures who are healthy examples of activism both within the church and the world.   Needless to say, if the "connotation" you speak of is "baked in", somehow I was not included in the baking. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But not with "coercive and divisive elements."

But it is none the less “activism” (and of the grass-roots sort) for change within the church. 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think the authors have any notion that this document will act as the solution to the problems of a polarized world and church.   I think its purpose was simply to be a motivating call for change.   It is just adding its influence and voice to the church.  That is how culture changes - voice by voice, until there are enough agreeing voices to be considered a "culture".

Maybe I've missed the section in the manifesto (or the interpretation) that you are talking about, but I don't see the manifesto trying to change culture as much as to inoculate against a movement that the manifesto people don't agree with or are worried about. 

Quote

How effective it has been is a whole other story.  It appears that it has had little influence.   That is not to say that its purpose and ideas are flawed.

So far (though I'm open to changing my perception), we disagree about its purpose.  I have no issues with its ideas though, other than that I question whether or not sharing them will do any discernible good.  And might even make things worse by causing more of a divide than we started with.

Quote

If a polarized world and church is the "them" where there are very few spaces of a more faithful middle-ground, I am glad at the attempt to create a safe space for the rest of "us".  Anytime a light, an idea, a moral, an ethic is lifted up, it creates a tension with those voices who disagree.  That is unavoidable.  The idea I see is to create more safe and faithful spaces within the church to exist.  I don't see that as bad.  Their efforts don't seem to have been very effective, but I appreciate their efforts none-the-less.

I don't see the bold as the "them".  I see church members that disagree with the manifesto as the 'them', with those who wrote the manifesto claiming the "us" label.  I also don't really see the manifesto as creating (or trying to create) more space for different voices in the church.

Quote

It is interesting how time changes perspective.  I noted that in the original thread about this manifesto, your original knee-jerk reaction was to say "I read that last week and really liked it", but in your response here you see it as potentially "making things worse".  This is not a criticism, just an observation.   I certainly align more with your first reaction, but who knows, maybe time will eventually have the same effect on me as it has on you.  

I've continued to say that I like it; that I don't disagree with it.  But we are much less unified today than we were 2 years ago (at least it feels that way to me), so perhaps I am more wary of drawing lines in the sand now than I used to be, even when I agree with the line.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I don't see that.  

If I encourage other Latter-day Saints to scrupulously obey the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom, I don't see that effort as being adversarial ("versus") to people who have chosen to disregard those commandments.

Okay.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's an example that is obviously going to support your argument.  But, what if we were talking about you encouraging other Latter-day Saints to fast and pray that someday gay members will be able to be married in the temple or that women will be ordained? 

Do you think that that (even though it breaks no commandments and has no impact on a member's temple worthiness or status in the church) could create an adversarial relationship to those members who believe wanting such a thing is wrong?

There are members who are breaking no commandments and who are still in support of the church but for whom the manifesto might be seen as adversarial to them and their strongly held beliefs. 

As such, the manifesto might create adversarial relationships between two groups who have no right or authority to call the other to repentance or judge them in any way.  And since it appears the manifesto has done no discernible good, why chance it doing bad?   

Sometimes the end justifies the means but the end in this instance hasn't really shown to be worth much.  If it had been likely to do some good or create a positive impact, then I'd probably see it differently.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Who is on the other side of this line, do you think?The Starfish Principle may be in play.  

The other side of the line--according to the manifesto--are those who are rigidly dogmatic (fundamentalism) and/or those who are politically progressive. 

Quote

 

The Starfish Principle may be in play.  

I have been teaching in my ward's Primary for several years now.  There are times when I try to think back to lessons from my childhood, and I often draw a blank.  As a child I attended church pretty much every week, but they blend together in my memory, or else I was zoned out for many of the lessons, or the lessons were not particularly memorable, and so on.  And yet cumulatively, they had a real impact on me.

Perhaps the Manifesto hasn't had a widespread impact.  I'm okay with that.  Most of us and our efforts fit into that category.  Virtually none of us will be remembered much, or at all, 100 years from now.  But that shouldn't stop us from making small, day-to-day efforts to encourage and uplift each other.

 

Reasonable minds can disagree but I don't consider writing a manifesto as "making small day-to-day efforts to encourage and uplift each other".  Writing a manifesto is just a fancy way of declaring a belief.  Ok, great.  Sincerely.  Lots in the manifesto that I really like and support.  But a manifesto on its own with nothing else to go with it (which is what it looks like we have here), seems less like "hasn't had much widespread impact" and more like "has had no impact whatsoever".

I liked the premise and the goal but it looks like there wasn't anywhere for anyone to actually go with it and I'm not sure of its use now, two years later. 

(I should also clarify that I had assumed by this thread that the writers of the manifesto were bringing it up again while ignoring that it had been around for 2 years and accomplished pretty much nothing useful, and that's the reason that I was less than enthused with it this second time around.  I didn't realize that Pogi was resurrecting it and not those who created it.)