NOM

Terryl and Fiona's son Nathaniel Givens and some of his buddies just released “Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto.” They claim to be setting up a bold new paradigm where you can speak out bravely in support of the church without having to call people names. Interestingly, one of the signators is Daniel Petersen.

Radical orthodoxy “is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism,” the declaration says.

The one essential point, however, is that you believe in and support The Brethren in all things.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12 ... manifesto/

As far as I can tell, this is a big nothingburger of the kind you get when you have some guys who want to get recognized as having something important to say despite actually having nothing new to say. You know, like the church's own recent manifestos. All it can accomplish, it seems to me, is to create yet another little faction of Mormons who think they're just a little bit more special than all the other Mormons.

They frame this as some sort of middle-way approach to Mormon history and doctrine by offering a thin veneer open-mindedness wrapped around a solid hunk of authority worship.

There seems to be more thrashing about on the apologetic side of things than I have seen in the past. Is the pandemic hurting the numbers that badly?

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:27 pm There seems to be more thrashing about on the apologetic side of things than I have seen in the past. Is the pandemic hurting the numbers that badly?

I kind of think they're wanting to acknowledge the lameness of apologetics but they can't just come out and say that, so they just shove it onto the same broad continuum with anti-Mormonism and fundamentalism and tell you just to stay in the gray middle zone. I don't see what's "radical" about that, or why it needs a proclamation that took years to compose. It's like they want to sound progressive and radical but without actually doing or saying anything progressive or radical.

I'm not sure exactly how you "stake a claim to the middle ground," while also “promote[ing] bold exploration beyond what is familiar," and also entertain "a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the gospel inherited from prior generations," while simultaneously wrapping it all up in the neat little bow of "under the tutelage of modern prophets."

As Brother Harry Nilsson taught, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:55 pm I kind of think they're wanting to acknowledge the lameness of apologetics but they can't just come out and say that, so they just shove it onto the same broad continuum with anti-Mormonism and fundamentalism and tell you just to stay in the gray middle zone. I don't see what's "radical" about that, or why it needs a proclamation that took years to compose. It's like they want to sound progressive and radical but without actually doing or saying anything progressive or radical.

I'm not sure exactly how you "stake a claim to the middle ground," while also “promote[ing] bold exploration beyond what is familiar," and also entertain "a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the gospel inherited from prior generations," while simultaneously wrapping it all up in the neat little bow of "under the tutelage of modern prophets."

As Brother Harry Nilsson taught, "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."

I wonder if the Givens are also responding to criticisms of their faithfulness that one finds in more traditional apologetic sources like this one: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -part-one/

I think they might feel pressure to prove that they are still faithful.

blazerb wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:54 am I wonder if the Givens are also responding to criticisms of their faithfulness that one finds in more traditional apologetic sources like this one: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -part-one/

I think they might feel pressure to prove that they are still faithful.

It is both entertaining and inevitable when apologists start cannibalizing their own herd.

On the MD&D board I posted that this manifesto is exactly how the Taliban and ISIS started...
You can probably imagine the comments I got from such a statement....I don’t think I’m wrong though. This is a manifesto to return to the age old, honorable space of theocracy.

2bizE wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:33 pm On the MD&D board I posted that this manifesto is exactly how the Taliban and ISIS started...
You can probably imagine the comments I got from such a statement....I don’t think I’m wrong though. This is a manifesto to return to the age old, honorable space of theocracy.

I saw that and agree you’re not wrong.

Hagoth,
For what it’s worth, the exmo side has done plenty to cannibalize it’s own herd too.

I think it’s a symptom of irrelevance. At some point everyone eventually moves on from Mormonism.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:05 pm Hagoth,
For what it’s worth, the exmo side has done plenty to cannibalize it’s own herd too.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:05 pm I think it’s a symptom of irrelevance. At some point everyone eventually moves on from Mormonism.

Maybe it's a good idea to stick with it just until you become a god. And then move on. Imagine celebrating the sixth day break from creating your first planet by popping open your first cold beer.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:47 amMaybe it's a good idea to stick with it just until you become a god. And then move on. Imagine celebrating the sixth day break from creating your first planet by popping open your first cold beer.

Whoa! Mind blown!

I like this Hagoth Doctrine...