Radical Incoherence

[Dr Moore]

I’m wondering out loud: what are the possible reasons for the group of signatories to believe there is any need whatsoever for a public domain document such as this “radical orthodoxy manifesto”?

The essential component - fealty to the leaders - is already explicitly affirmed in their temple recommend interviews. That is the crux of the “orthodoxy” being clarified in the document.

I can think of just a few potential reasons:
1. External motivation:
a. A church leader asked for it
b. Too many sincere questioners or visible critics have voiced legitimate questions about their orthodoxy (a.k.a. submission to leaders)
2. Internal motivation:
a. Concern that sincere questioners may wonder about their orthodoxy
b. Attention seeking, stir the pot a bit to remind everyone “we’re still here!”

Maybe others have better ideas. I suspect (1a) is most likely, with (2b) a happy byproduct.

[Kishkumen]

Excellent question, Dr Moore. I usually just assume that showing obedience to the leaders is an integral part of LDS identity. If you don’t regularly signal such obedience, leaders and fellow members alike are going to wonder about your faithfulness.

[moinmoin]

I’m wondering out loud: what are the possible reasons for the group of signatories to believe there is any need whatsoever for a public domain document such as this “radical orthodoxy manifesto”?

The essential component - fealty to the leaders - is already explicitly affirmed in their temple recommend interviews. That is the crux of the “orthodoxy” being clarified in the document.

I can think of just a few potential reasons:
1. External motivation:
a. A church leader asked for it
b. Too many sincere questioners or visible critics have voiced legitimate questions about their orthodoxy (a.k.a. submission to leaders)
2. Internal motivation:
a. Concern that sincere questioners may wonder about their orthodoxy
b. Attention seeking, stir the pot a bit to remind everyone “we’re still here!”

Maybe others have better ideas. I suspect (1a) is most likely, with (2b) a happy byproduct.

I think it's definitely 2b. I don't think 1a is likely at all.

"Radical orthodoxy" sounds too much to me like what Mitt Romney was going for with his "severely conservative." It's meant to convey something fresh and new, with a dash of edgy, but it actually was unnecessary. There have always been informed thinkers who are loyal and supportive of the Church through the ages; "radical orthodoxy" as they describe it isn't new.

I wondered if whoever wrote it had Orson Scott Card's definitions from Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary in mind in picking the label? I don't think so, but it's certainly possible.

orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who has twelve children, a garden, a year's supply of food and supplies, every book with a General Authority's name on the cover, and a subscription to the Ensign, New Era, and Friend. The orthodox Mormon man has no debts, his wife does not work outside the home, and his house and yard are clean and fixed up. The orthodox Mormon woman has clean, obedient children, a house full of artifacts made on homemaking day, and a perfectly satisfied husband. There is no Mormon product that the orthodox Mormon will not buy, no acquaintance who has not heard about the gospel, and no doctrine or story told in a Church meeting that he or she does not believe. Orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including life itself, for the gospel; and being utterly teachable and meek, they will inherit the earth. (See radically orthodox Mormon.)

radically orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who believes without question only those doctrines that are clearly set forth in the standard works or that have been accepted as revelation by the uplifted hands of the Saints in General Conference. The radically orthodox Mormon takes part fully in all aspects of Mormon life, but does not believe that all Mormon customs are necessarily ordained by God; he or she will gladly try any suggestion for improvement, and gladly abandon any practice that does not work. Radically orthodox Mormons seek truth everwhere—in prayer, in gospel study, in Church meetings, and in the world—and will embrace any idea that is good; however, even though they are constantly learning, they almost never argue about doctrine because their faith is that God will make clear what must be clear, and if there is a difference of opinion, God will resolve it when resolution becomes necessary to our exaltation. Radically orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including their lives, if the Lord required it, but will not give up one friend for the sake of winning an argument. It is practically impossible to tell a radically orthodox Mormon from an orthodox one; it may well be that no one is radically orthodox in all aspects of life. But the difference between them is profound, for while both are meek and teachable, the one listens while the other also sees. (See orthodox Mormon.)

[SeerOfProvo]

I found the 'About' page to be more illuminating than the so-called manifesto itself:

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.

Really helped me put this into a proper context:

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

Like Odysseus sailing between Scylla and Charybdis, the path of discipleship takes us through a narrow course between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism. Navigating these perilous waters requires radical orthodoxy. Radical orthodoxy is an approach to the Restored Gospel that seeks to harmonize fidelity with exploration and cultural improvement.

I have to admit when it comes to the perennial problem of how to navigate a path between the dreaded Scylla and Charybdis I wasn't expecting this. The authors seem to be intimating that what best represents the ideal of the golden mean as articulated by the Oracle at Delphi is a software management strategy focused on customer support. I took a gander at agilemanifesto.org (reminds me of geocities page) and found an interesting URL called 'Twelve Principles of Agile Software':

We follow these principles:

• Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

• Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.

• Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

• Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

• Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

• The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

• Working software is the primary measure of progress.

• Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

• Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

• Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.

• The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

• At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

This is to be the template for Radical Orthodoxy's intellectual engagement, philosophical contemplation, and spiritual development?

[Kishkumen]

Huh. Well, that is interesting. I still don't know how it is that the word radical fits, but maybe I am being too negative about it. If the title of this manifesto had been "Agile Orthodoxy" or something like that, I doubt I would have reacted in the same way. In any case, I clearly overreacted. This is not my thing, but, putting that aside--because, as one of my acquaintances reminded me, not everything is about me--the question is whether this is, on the whole, a good thing. I would have to put it in the "good thing" category because, in my view, if all of the signatories live up to the better aspects of this, they will be better off for it, and so, presumably, will the rest of us who deal with them directly or indirectly be better off for it.

In this About section, I can agree with the following:

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.

That's a pretty poor list of options, but I can see how people tend to get pushed there. And, honestly, I think some of the signatories have themselves participated in creating a situation in which young people would come out of the internal cultural conflicts in Mormonism believing that these are the options. I have Ralph Hancock specifically in mind here. We can now add Hanna Seriac to this company.

But would it not be better to say that, instead of seeing both extremes as unacceptable, one acknowledges that people in both extremes are part of, but not the dominant faction of, a diverse Mormon community? Let's imagine a world in which I don't feel the need to take either Ralph Hancock or Kate Kelly at all seriously because their attempts to bully people into their camp are seen clearly as nonsense. I can say unequivocally that I would be relieved to see an end of all of the bullying go on. Would it not be nice to look at the bullies out there in the Mormon community as the crackpot stake missionaries with the wide ties and leisure suits that we just roll our eyes at when they are being boorish and loud, and then still wave to them politely at the ward potluck dinner?

That is the world I want to live in. I am not sure this manifesto will get us there, but I am willing to cool off about it.

That is what I would like to say if I did not feel that authoritarianism were not at the root of a lot of the LDS Church's problems, and that is an obtrusive element in this manifesto.

[Res Ipsa]

I enjoyed how you worked through this, Kish. That last bit led me to wonder what a less authoritarian Mormon Church would look like. I have to confess to a failure of imagination. I just can’t picture it.

[Gadianton]

I’m wondering out loud: what are the possible reasons for the group of signatories to believe there is any need whatsoever for a public domain document such as this “radical orthodoxy manifesto”?

wow, yeah, this is pretty intense. I'm really curious what their angle is. Could they be invited to post here?

[Philo Sofee]

Excellent question, Dr Moore. I usually just assume that showing obedience to the leaders is an integral part of LDS identity. If you don’t regularly signal such obedience, leaders and fellow members alike are going to wonder about your faithfulness.

This is the derail they have become blind to. It has NEVER been about obedience to leaders from Jesus' view. It was obedience to God that matters, not other humans. Sheesh, it's difficult to see how they cannot fathom that. I am not obedient to ANY arm of flesh for my own spirituality, as Nephi said, "trust NOT in the arm of flesh." It is not leaders who will come and enlighten you, but the Paraclete. That is, assuming Jesus actually had any idea about spiritual reality.