Radical Orthodoxy a Manifesto

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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. 

This is one of the goals of the manifesto outlined in the "about" section:

Quote

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.

They state that their inspiration and goal is to influence/change the culture in the same way that the Agile Manifesto did so in the software development community.  Clearly, this has not been as influential as that manifesto, but I applaud their effort. I agree that it is a form of inoculation against something - the polarization of "rigid dogmatism" and "fundamentalism" as well as the "unhinged progressivism" in the church.  So, if they are drawing a line, that seems like a pretty safe line to draw - one that Joseph Smith himself would probably advocate for today (and did in his day).   This is not necessarily meant in a political way, as explained in the video interview of the authors on the website, though they are equally concerned about the political polarism we see today (or 2020). 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

The polarities are the "them".  If you read all of the supporting articles and watch the video, it is these extreme polarities they are against - if they are against anything.  you will also see the strongest criticism from these extremes.  I linked to one in the OP from the rigid dogmatic fundamental extreme  They are trying very hard to emphasize more what they are for then what they are against, which I respect.

As far as creating more space for alternate voices in the church, I suggest you read this supporting article:

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

This is the sum up of the article:

Quote

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.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

The purpose was expressly not "to set forth boundaries" aka "draw lines", but rather be a rallying cry for alternate voices. 

I agree that we are less unified and more polarized today then 2 years ago, which is why we need this message now more then ever.  I see this manifesto as anti-polarity and anti-divisiveness (as much of a paradox as that may be - but these guys seem to be all about navigating the tension in paradoxes) I guess I am not sure I see the harm in trying to create a healthy space for those who don't feel like they belong in either extreme and are concerned with the trajectory of further division and polarization within the church.  Sometimes fostering less-divisiveness REQUIRES that we ironically create a line and be against principles that foster this polarization.  So, yes, there is a line, but you can't be for something without being against something, can you?  So, if we are going to be for something, I stand on the side of uniting in diversity and de-polarization.  Again, I think they are less about being against something, and more about creating an alternative option for people to find place in.  

Edited December 15, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

The purpose was expressly not "to set forth boundaries" aka "draw lines", but rather be a rallying cry for alternate voices. 

I'm not getting this from the manifesto's introduction, which says in part:

"This statement encourages intellectual engagement with the Church of Jesus Christ in ways that are faithful and flexible instead of either rigidly dogmatic or heretical and doubting."

It doesn't seem to want to rally anything alternative.  Just to give a place for intellectual views that are faithful but not dogmatic.  Which is a good thing, that I just don't think the manifesto is capable of doing.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not getting this from the manifesto's introduction, which says in part:

"This statement encourages intellectual engagement with the Church of Jesus Christ in ways that are faithful and flexible instead of either rigidly dogmatic or heretical and doubting."

It doesn't seem to want to rally anything alternative.  Just to give a place for intellectual views that are faithful but not dogmatic.  Which is a good thing, that I just don't think the manifesto is capable of doing.

We are in agreement in what the manifesto is capable of doing.  My purpose wasn't to portray this in the light of it being a highly successful attempt - but rather to simply cheer the attempt and discuss these ideas further.  Clearly, it has lost its steam.  

Sharing intellectual views that are faithful but not dogmatic is not always a safe thing to do within the church.   I know that I am not alone in that feeling.  I have heard it expressed by so many faithful and dedicated members. 

The fall-in-line with correlation culture feels very dogmatic in nature - it is a narrative that we are culturally expected to fall-in-line with, not question (at least out-loud), and it is a culture which shuns diversity of perspectives that might shed an alternate light of ideas.

For example, one would feel safe and comfortable sharing their views on the absolute and objective nature of truth in church (even though these are just philosophies of men and are not revealed doctrines, but are interpretations), but if you share an alternate view about relativism - watch out!  How dare you bring philosophies of men into church and mingle them with scripture!  Well, that is the irony of it all - they are doing the same thing but in a more dogmatic fashion.  I am not opposed to them believing and sharing their unrevealed ideas, why is this culture not ok with me believing and sharing mine?  I believe we would create a more enduring faith culture with less detrimental forms of disillusionment, where less dogmatism and more openness exists in the culture.  I have no problem with correlated material even, I agree with the vast majority of it, but I want to feel safe to speak my perspective and hear from other perspectives in a respectful and faith centered way.  I get that it is more delicate in church because we shouldn't hijack the lesson.  But where open ended questions are asked, we should feel safe to answer them honestly. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

How dare you bring philosophies of men into church and mingle them with scripture!  Well, that is the irony of it all - they are doing the same thing but in a more dogmatic fashion.  

Yes but what if you views ARE inspired Doctrine?  And Doctrine is not philosophy? It presents a coherent paradigm-how does that happen without philosophy?

"All truth is independent in its sphere" section 93

Alma 32- Experiment with your beliefs til you find what is sweet to you.

I know you agree, but those sound pretty post modern to me

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but what if you views ARE inspired Doctrine?  And Doctrine is not philosophy? It presents a coherent paradigm-how does that happen without philosophy?

"All truth is independent in its sphere" section 93

Alma 32- Experiment with your beliefs til you find what is sweet to you.

I know you agree, but those sound pretty post modern to me

 

Perhaps, but I don’t want my interpretations forced upon them any more then I want their interpretations forced upon me.    

I want a space where different perspectives and faithful interpretations can safely be expressed and discussed in a respectful way.

The fact is that no two people share the same interpretations of all doctrines, scriptures, and teachings.  The diversity of perspective is unavoidable.  I understand the value of correlated material, but it would just be nice if it wasn’t treated in such a dogmatic way - where the diversity of interpretation and perspective that is naturally a part of all of us could be safely expressed and discussed in relation to that narrative in a faithful way. 

I recognize that may create challenges, but nothing that more experiential maturity in such an open culture can’t handle.  I view the alternative as far more dangerous to faith and civility.  We have seen too much unnecessary loss because of it.  To many enemies that need not be enemies. Too much polarization of being in the narrative or out of the church.

Edited December 15, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32- Experiment with your beliefs til you find what is sweet to you.

Uh-oh.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Perhaps, but I don’t want my interpretations forced upon them any more then I want their interpretations forced upon me.    

I want a space where different perspectives and faithful interpretations can safely be expressed and discussed in a respectful way.

The fact is that no two people share the same interpretations of all doctrines, scriptures, and teachings.  The diversity of perspective is unavoidable.  I understand the value of correlated material, but it would just be nice if it wasn’t treated in such a dogmatic way - where the diversity of interpretation and perspective that is naturally a part of all of us could be safely expressed and discussed in relation to that narrative in a faithful way. 

I recognize that may create challenges, but nothing that more experiential maturity in such an open culture can’t handle.  I view the alternative as far more dangerous to faith and civility.  We have seen too much unnecessary loss because of it.  To many enemies that need not be enemies. Too much polarization of being in the narrative or out of the church.

I getcha in a couple of levels

 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps, but I don’t want my interpretations forced upon them any more then I want their interpretations forced upon me.    

I want a space where different perspectives and faithful interpretations can safely be expressed and discussed in a respectful way.

The fact is that no two people share the same interpretations of all doctrines, scriptures, and teachings.  The diversity of perspective is unavoidable.  I understand the value of correlated material, but it would just be nice if it wasn’t treated in such a dogmatic way - where the diversity of interpretation and perspective that is naturally a part of all of us could be safely expressed and discussed in relation to that narrative in a faithful way. 

I recognize that may create challenges, but nothing that more experiential maturity in such an open culture can’t handle.  I view the alternative as far more dangerous to faith and civility.  We have seen too much unnecessary loss because of it.  To many enemies that need not be enemies. Too much polarization of being in the narrative or out of the church.

Your second sentence describes the council approach.