Three bright young Mormon scholars have started an interesting public conversation by publishing Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto at an online LDS journal. The public conversation has continued in articles at the Salt Lake Tribune and at By Common Consent. The Radical Orthodoxy (“RO”) folks have set up their own website with some additional essays fleshing out their views. I’m going to first take a short look at the Radical Orthodoxy post and why I think the three authors and two dozen signatories think this proposal needs to be published and defended. Second, I’ll spell out my alternative proposal, Conventional Unorthodoxy, and suggest that is what the Church really needs to make room for.
Radical Orthodoxy?
In the summary blurb at the top of the Manifesto post, the authors situate RO as a middle ground between skeptical scholar/critics of the Church and an emergent movement of young online defenders of the Church who energetically espouse traditional conservative LDS faith claims:
Many young believers feel the only options they have 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. 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.
First of all, what’s disturbing here is identifying “progressive political doctrines and intellectualism” with “heretical and doubting.” Really? For many years the Church has honestly tried to be politically neutral, despite the conservative tilt of its doctrines and despite public statements by the leadership on conservative moral issues. There has been an LDS Democratic majority leader in the Senate and, not too many years ago, a Democratic governor of Utah. So for the authors to quite clearly identify Democrats (who else supports “progressive poltical doctrines”?) as “heretics” is both out of line with the oft-repeated official LDS position and, let’s be clear, just a very stupid thing to say. Hey, if you’re trying to sound sophisticated and enlightened, don’t start off by proclaiming that only conservative Republicans are welcome in the Church and that Democrats are LDS “heretics” because they support progressive political doctrines.
But I do understand the desire of the authors and the signatories to carve out some space for themselves within the mainstream Church. They want to publish articles on LDS topics, or secular topics that bear on LDS doctrines and history, without having their faithfulness called into question by bishops who are largely uninformed on … well, LDS doctrines and history. That’s the “orthodoxy” part of the proposal. They want to be able to write an essay on the problematic golden plates or the stubborn DNA evidence about the Asian origins of Native Americans or the health claims of the Word of Wisdom without having their bishop accuse them of disloyalty or heresy. The response is, “Hey, look at our Manifesto: we are publicly committed to ‘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.'” If questioned about the fidelity of Book of Mormon translations, they’ll happily reply, “Yes, indeed, with a rock in a hat.” If called on to support Joseph’s practice of polygamy or the troubled provenance of D&C 132, they’ll reply, “Yes sir, an angel with a flaming sword.” They are happy to be more orthodox than your high school seminary teacher, as long as they can be “radical” in their scholarship. Or maybe they want to be orthodox on Sunday and radical the other days of the week. And just as a reminder, “orthodox” means right or correct opinions or beliefs, so proclaiming one’s orthodoxy means proclaiming one’s agreement with “official” LDS doctrines and beliefs. So RO means believing (or stating that you believe) in what you, as a Mormon, are supposed to believe, but claiming license to speculate in interesting and enlightening ways about what lies behind those beliefs or what goes beyond them.
And let me be perfectly clear: there is nothing wrong with that! The RO people are trying to deal with two problems. First, trying to distinguish themselves from fundamentalist apologists on the right and those who espouse “progressive political doctrines” on the left. That is what they explain in the opening summary blurb I quoted above. They’re looking for solid and defensible and loyally Mormon middle ground. The second problem is local leadership who think anything said about LDS doctrine or history that isn’t right out of the Sunday School manual is skirting with heresy or “alternative voices.” That’s the “radical” part of the RO position, arguing that it’s perfectly acceptable to speculate about LDS doctrine and history during the week as long as one is reliably orthodox on Sunday.
The RO people are not really pushing a new or edgy idea here. There are now publishers and journals putting out books and articles by the dozen exploring Mormon topics across the full spectrum of belief and scholarship. The Church itself is part of this industry, with the excellent JSPP publications and the Gospel Topics Essays series. There are now several Mormon Studies programs and endowed chairs at various universities. The Church is mildly supportive of or at least pleasantly neutral about these programs. So from a different angle, the RO position might be phrased like this: “Hey, the Church is pretty much okay with all of this research and publishing and public discussion, so if we academics and the interested lay persons who buy our books and read our articles are reliably orthodox on Sunday, then you shouldn’t have any problem with it, Bishop. You’re welcome to attend our monthly study group. Have a nice day.”
Conventional Unorthodoxy
The RO people seem to be arguing a point that is not really in dispute. Richard Bushman and Armand Mauss published a variety of books and articles on touchy LDS issues from the 1960s on. They were radically orthodox but didn’t need a manifesto to stay within the mainstream Church. The same could be said for dozens or hundreds of LDS scholars right down to the present day. Things get a little trickier if a person is on the LDS payroll, but that’s a different scenario. I think the RO people are fighting a war that has already been won. What we need is not room for RO within the Church. What we need is room for Conventional Unorthodoxy.
What is Conventional Unorthodoxy, you ask? Let me borrow the style and format of the Manifesto to explain the “unorthodox” part first, here rewriting the fourth paragraph:
Conventional Unorthodoxy is unorthodox because it acknowledges that truth (true accounts of historical events and true descriptions of the real world) can sometimes be at odds with the current positions of the institutional Church and its present leadership. While some may argue that membership in the Church requires meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles on a wide variety of topics, Conventional Unorthodoxy affirms the scriptural statement that we are all individually given the divine power to distinguish between good and evil, and between truth and various falsehoods. Furthermore, we have a moral obligation to support what is good and true, even when doing so runs contrary to popular worldly views or popular LDS views. Those who embrace Conventional Unorthodoxy recognize the complex choices and values that people face in the modern world, but strive to support truth over falsehoods and misrepresentations, and to do some good in the world.
That doesn’t mean you have to wear your unorthodoxy on your sleeve. You don’t have to ask confrontational questions in adult Sunday School class or go to the pulpit at fast and testimony meeting to muse about the days to come when women will get the LDS priesthood. The “conventional” part of Conventional Unorthodoxy addresses just that point. Let me borrow and rewrite the fifth paragraph of the Manifesto:
Conventional Unorthodoxy is conventional because it promotes relaxed but willing conformity with the familiar patterns of life in an LDS ward: you go to church on most Sundays, you accept most callings, you engage in friendly chat with fellow ward members, you show up for some service projects, you write a tithing check or two. Conventional Unorthodoxy is not out to rewrite the Handbook or publicly protest this or that LDS doctrine or policy. Quiet, gradual change is the best one can hope for in the Church, so pick your battles and support positive change when you can. For now, help a neighbor, encourage the sad and lonely, keep your family happy, support your local leaders when you can, and do no harm.
The Manifesto affirms a list of bolded virtues at the end. Humility and integrity, great, although they explain “integrity” as not “compartmentalizing the Gospel from our professional pursuits, politics, scholarship, social interactions, or hobbies.” But the whole defense of radical orthodoxy in the body of the Manifesto was all about compartmentalizing! They want “bold exploration beyond what is familiar” and “to revisit many facets of our received paradigm,” but then to be thoroughly orthodox on Sunday. That’s closer to compartmentalization than to a unified and integral approach to life. I’m not saying that’s unethical. Life is full of compromises. But what they are describing in the body of the Manifesto is not “integrity” in the strict, unified sense they are claiming at the end.
Faith, hope, and charity, that’s great, too. That goes to the “conventional” part of Conventional Unorthodoxy, because there are plenty of those good things in the day-to-day activities that one participates in as an active Latter-day Saint in an LDS ward or branch. Faith, as informed by knowledge and reality. Hope, directed to good ends. Charity, kind and loving words and actions to those within one’s circle of contacts and influence.
I’m not looking for signatories, although I suspect some readers have spelled out for themselves, whether explicitly or implicitly, some similar set of principles to guide their activity in the Church. And I suspect that those readers who have exited the Church (or who were never LDS to start with) have grappled with similar issues. It’s part of modern life to have to define the parameters of your individual relationship with all manner of corporate institutions: the government, the public school your kids attend, your employer, your HOA, a political party, a club, a church. Sometimes we shift those boundaries, switch allegiances, or change our terms of engagement. We might support some activities of one of these institutions, but not others. And so it is with the Church.
So: Are you radically orthodox? Conventionally unorthodox? Or something else entirely?
Wheat & Tares 
I love this. I really relate to your description of “conventionally unorthodox”, which feels more like integrity to me. I don’t have to try to make myself believe things that aren’t true and then immediately change my beliefs once leadership changes their position. That’s what is so untenable for me about so called “radical orthodoxy”.
Yes. This is how I view my place in the church. I enjoy reading your description of Conventional Unorthodoxy because it helps me know that there are other members out there who are like me. But I have no desire to sign anything. I agree with Kathleen Flake. We don’t need more “-ites” in the church.
“just a very stupid thing to say” — I was once asked “C’ain’t you say that no nicer?” 🙂
It seems you’ve in effect identified the LDS Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto as posturing to avoid accusations of heresy. Maybe so.
As early as about 1980 Orson Scott Card was writing about being “radically orthodox,” whatever that meant. I have not found him writing of “Radical Orthodoxy,” but haven’t done an exhaustive search.
Then there was “Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology” ed. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Graham Ward in 1999 which was very clearly not LDS.
I noticed reading the essays linked from the LDS Radical Orthodoxy Manifesto, that at least one of the 3 authors often, but inconsistently, referred to their position as “LDS Radical Orthodoxy”. I wonder if that was a half-hearted distinction from Milbank, et al., or what. Maybe the term will find its way into Mormon-speak as unknowingly disconnected from common English-speaking culture as our use of some other common English words and phrases.
I have wondered what the authors of “LDS Radical Orthodoxy” mean by “radical”. Merriam-Webster’s definition most likely appropriate to context is:
“3a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs the radical right”
But the “Manifesto” seems instead to be self-labeling as NOT extreme. And the reaction of some (many?) has been “meh.” Oh, well.
In any case, I won’t be signing on to any such Manifesto — not even to avoid accusations of heresy. (One respected, senior member of the congregation declared me a “heretic” when, as a 20-year-old missionary, I dared to mention in Sunday School Orson Pratt’s speculations on resurrection and the body’s periodic replacement of cells.) I guess I’m currently closer to being what you describe as “conventionally unorthodox”.
Some people would say that, for them, the injunction to “do no harm” contradicts the injunction “not to rewrite the handbook or publicly protest this or that LDS doctrine or policy” to the extent those doctrines and policies are actively harmful to children, women, LGBTQ folks, and potentially themselves to the extent the dissonance is just too much to bear, but I get where you’re coming from here and think it’s a defensible and honorable approach to Church activity and membership.
Although not stated in the RO document, based on comments to the Trib by some of the authors it is explicitly anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman (if you think it’s important that the Church embrace structural equality for women, that is). That’s what is most disappointing to people who had otherwise found a lot of value in some of the signatories’ work.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that laws that infringed on political participation by gays could offend the Equal Protection Clause. In dissent from the opinion in Romer, Justice Scalia wrote that there was nothing unconstitutional about antigay discrimination because the Supreme Court, in Davis v. Beason (1890) ruled that Idaho acted constitutionally by depriving polygamists of the right to vote.
In doing so, Scalia made a conservative rhetorical move against expanding rights by equating a left-wing sexual minority against a right-wing sexual minority, so that each upon reading his argument would be offended at comparison to the other, and crawl back under the bed in silence while heterosexual, Protestant white men golf and drink whiskey, their womenfolk bake, and their sheep get nervous. A pox on all deviants, his dissent reads.
My sense is that RO represents a similar attempt, in the narrower context of an intramural LDS contest.
I’m unorthodox, and not conventional either. I foster no hopes of changing the church from within and my views about truth on contested and controversial matters will offend most orthodox believers.
Yet I see the authors of the RO, having read them and many prominent signatories for years, as orthodox, not radical orthodox. I fail to see much that is radical about them. There really isn’t that much space between them and the so-called fundamentalist believers. Do they dare critique the leaders, their positions and words? No. Do they uphold even the most absurd historicity claims such as the Book of Abraham? Yes. Do they support LGBTQ rights? No. But hey, they’re open to the idea that human history actually predates 6,000 years and that the flood didn’t cover the whole earth. The “manifesto” (what a pretentious name) is nothing more than a reaffirmation of church-brokeness with a non-believable plea for us to look at these guys as open-minded. Hardly.
The main thing I got out of the RO manifesto was that the writers felt that they would benefit from defining themselves as a group. Perhaps because they encounter resistance from both liberal and conservative sides, they feel like they feel the need to say, “we’re here. This is what stand for. Even though some folk think it’s a contradiction.” I’m still trying to figure out what they stand for, but so far it sounds like it is the right to hold conservative positions (anti-choice, anti LGBT) while still doing scholarly research that is commonly associated with more liberal positions. Or rather, the right to defer to the church leadership on moral positions while claiming free reign to research and discuss those positions and there history somewhat critically.
Neither the Radical orthodox or conventional unorthodox labels apply to me very well. They are intentionally paradoxical labels. But I feel closer to the conventionally unorthodox label.
RO is a very specific, academically specialized, careful form of cafeteria Mormonism. CU is too, but the mental gymnastics are easier on me. I don’t think I’m limber enough to execute what RO requires.
So it’s a workable space for me, or rather it would be if it was more than words on a screen for me right now. It’s not my reality, though Lord knows I tried to make it so. The church was very unhealthy for me, and though I miss the positives, I can breathe easier without the negatives. They were poisoning me to death. (Not a metaphor.)
I try as much as I ever did to do good while doing no harm, but I’m seen as a heretic no matter the truth. Sigh.
All that’s left is to pray God to “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Father, Mother, give me courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.” And then to do my mortal best to live by this ’manifesto.’
Sometimes people write things in a way that is intended to make them sound smart when in fact a more simple statement would be superior. Instead of carrying on about “radical orthodoxy”, which the authors know is meant to sound both ironic and clever, they could have simply said the following: “We intend to follow the teachings and standards of the Church while acknowledging that our LDS beliefs are nuanced.”
> for the authors to quite clearly identify Democrats (who else supports “progressive poltical doctrines”?) as “heretics” is both out of line with the oft-repeated official LDS position and, let’s be clear, just a very stupid thing to say.
Well, it’s stupid if they didn’t mean to say it.
I don’t think the authors are stupid. Sure, they’re not half as clever (or wise) as they think they are. But I don’t think they made a mistake there. I don’t think they’re merely claiming space for loyalty and thinking at the same time.
What if the project actually *is*, fundamentally, a political one and specifically a politically conservative one?
What if affirming orthodoxy is the means, not the end?
An improvement over radical orthodoxy (while having no objections to RO on the merits, except to the signed manifesto aspect).
I enjoyed this article. I think conventional unorthodoxy fits me pretty well. I really enjoy participating in my ward, and I don’t like to rock the boat too much. I have some unorthodox beliefs, and I’m ok with that.
What does the “manifesto” accomplish? It appears to be a CYA document for hesitant researchers. It’s basically unnecessary. The signees pledge fealty to the Q15. Yawn. And I don’t like signed pledges or manifestos. I didn’t have my children sign them (for example, not to smoke), and I didn’t sign the ones generated at work (for example, to drive safely). The manifesto seems like showboating.
Having said that, there is a need for creative thinking. Much of the gulf between conservative and progressive members is generated from attitudes toward science. With conservatives doubting global warming, masks, evolution, vaccines, etc. Leaders need to narrow the abyss between the 2 groups. And if the leadership doesn’t come down on the side of science, it will continue to hemorrhage young members.
When i was a youthful member in 1960’s, we were taught that religion and science were compatible. And I believe that to be the case. One way the two could be synchronized is by applying some of the concepts of Process Theology. No new doctrine, just a different way of looking at things. It fits in well with the concept of modern revelation, everything if progressing.
I can’t see the New Testament Jesus signing up for Radical Orthodoxy. He pushed back against the orthodoxy of the day. He turned things upside down in an effort to preach a gospel of love.
Radical Orthodoxy works until it doesn’t. I tried. It worked. And then it didn’t. It creates wedges where they don’t need to exist. It tightens the boundaries of the tent instead of broadening them.
We can’t leave our gay children out and call ourselves a family-centered church. We can’t leave our non-believing children out and call ourselves a family-oriented church. We can’t have policies that create divides where they don’t need to exist. We have to acknowledge that a lot of our doctrine is actually policy and much of the policy needs to change. Policies have ramifications for real people. Real damage occurs when policies are misguided.
I think Jesus was about Radical Unorthodoxy. He spoke truth to power. He included the marginalized. He called out hypocrisy. He upturned the idea that one couldn’t heal a person or pluck food from a plant on the Sabbath. He called on the wealthy to share their resources with the poor. That’s the Jesus whose teachings I love.
*We can’t leave our otherwise-believing children out and call ourselves a family-oriented church.
I regret characterizing anyone as non-believing. Everyone believes something.
Many we might characterize as non-believing actually believe in truth, goodness, rationality, science, justice, compassion, generosity, and empathy. We have a narrow version of what we categorize as truth and cast aside members who don’t conform or who see through the flaws of our status quo thinking, who are willing to move the needle in ways we eventually will but simply haven’t yet.
I really like your alternative, Dave, as a person who’s in the pews and doesn’t stir up much trouble in person but who disagrees with so many things I hear at church. Also, I love John W.’s point that the RO folks don’t look that far from the fundamentalists. I agree with this take, although I realize it may just be a sign of how heretical I am. 🙂
Great analysis Dave B. The idea that they may need it to push back against insular thinking from local leaders was something I had not thought about, because of the already conservative nature of the signatories.
Unfortunately it still seems to me the purpose of the RO is to define progressive Mormonism out of bounds of orthodoxy. I can’t help but think the “fundamentalist” envisioned by the RO signatories are people already outside the CoJCoLDS fold. I note this because at least one signatory provides a forum for DezNat aligned people on FairMormon’s FairVoice podcast. If DezNat isn’t “fundamentalist” I can’t imagine what else is that still remains in full fellowship with the church. In other words, the RO “fundamentalist” is a strawman to make it look like the RO signatories occupy a middle way. In reality, they are THE conservative side of church orthodoxy.
“Fierce fidelity to the institutional church” just what we need in modern society. Particularly to an organization that squires away $300 billion dollars while leaving children of its members to be stunted by malnutrition. An institution that was condemned by its very own scriptures. See Mormon 8 ,2 Nephi 28 , 3 Nephi 16 and D and C 109. If they want to be fiercely faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ that is one thing ,being fiercely faithful to an institution that is populated by fallible men is a dangerous course. Why do they not ask when was the last time a GA testified in public of being in the presence of he whose special witness they claim to be. What good is a special witness who refuses to testify. How many apostles have publically claimed to have seen the Savior since Joseph Smith ( the correct answer is 5 . The last was in 1974). What was the last “revelation “ received by the Prophet . The one telling children that they may not receive saving ordinances even if they were worthy if their parents were gay. Or maybe it was the one .rescinding that one because “God had changed his mind”. We don’t need more fierce fidelity to institutions. We need fierce fidelity to the Savior .and his teachings . We need disciple scholars who will speak up without fear or hesitation when the institution we all love and have devoted our lives to goes astray. Anything less is not discipleship it is mindless obedience unbecoming a true disciple.
I don’t see a mutiplicity of “isms”; I only see but TWO. Imagine a figure representing Intellectual Latter-day Saints made up of Venn-diagram circles representing various, arbitrarily-chosen influences — of, say, those of: /the church/; /intellect &/or progressivism/; /idiosyncratic impressions/; /reactionaryism and/or cultural nationalism/; /antiquated practices/ — the what-I’ll-call-FSers (,”faithful-scholarship”-ers) particularly privilege /the church/ whereas NOMers (‘new order’ mormons), do, intellect/&or progressivism; both groups’ making claims of cultural superiority, with group A’s seeming to call Group B quasi apostate and with the latter replying, “Hey, at least we’re no rubes.”
To the uninitiated, the thread here must be like overhearing new england puritans worried about the propriety of wearing black by other than a minister or else on other than the lord’s day. —– I’ve visited friends who lived in /hizmet/-movement “lighthouses” (their name for houses they use for collective student dormitories, housing young, mostly turk, religious muslims). At one such house, one resident ; there was was kurd & it was interesting seeing the interplay among them, with the ethnic turks exhibiting a “majoritarian,” subtle, cultural superiority. To me they seemed the same. Amongst themselves? Such pronounced differences! (Ironically, the person held as spiritual founder of the overall movement of which /hizmet/ is a part was himself a kurd: said nursi, 1877 – 1923.)
ANY foundational statements — such as of this particular group of “radically orthodox” or its variants @ the maxwell institute, F.A.I.R, or interpreter foundation — are “political,” in the “intramural” sense mentioned. This very blog have a foundational statement concerning its welcoming a broad variety of views; ipso facto, it shouldn’t be any great surprise that “majoritarian” commenters at this venue are NOMers. In contrast, quite a sprinkling of FSers do over at a blog maintained, say, by the M.I.
Recasting my last comment: In reconciling faith with intellect, certain more orthodox entities privilege the church whereas progMorms privilege the secular academy. Not wanting to rely on these coinage, however, I now surf to Wheat & Tares’ “about us”-type of statements, then, to those of the By Common Consent web log; and, I’ll play off these sites’ self-descriptions & term them both the (more-so self-consciously) “/Rationally/ Faithful.” For —– the following taxonomy. Maxwell Inst. sees its mission as “faithful scholarship” whereas both F.A.I.R. & Interpreter Found. see theirs as /that/, plus, apologetics. Meanwhile, the venue of Rad. Orth. self-consciously examines what mechanisms are at play in order to stay on the same side of the cultural divides as is the Intellectual-yet-Orthodox (Max. I., F.A.I.R., & Interpreter) in relation to either more leftwardly-oriented venues of the /rationally/ faithful or else whatever more rightwardly -oriented venues (which I’ll refrain from characterizing, to conserve space ).
“/Rationally/ Faithful” are often a little more nervous at church than are the Intellectual-yet-Orthodox; any moment might come along where those /Rationally/ Faithful with candor will be subjected to shunning, having been perceived as puffed-up-in-their-own-understanding. In their own venues, however, it is /they/ who sense the security of having the strength in numbers. At which /Rational/ Faithful do their own version of shunning: like a flock of chickens, they peck at new comers such as the Rad. Orth., nit picking word choices, rationale for being, & so on. (Me? I say allow the intelligentsia be populated in part by folks engaged in devotional stuff & also allow church be populated in part by folks hyper rational!)