- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
Not to overly focus on the questions, what of the answers?If someone can’t unabashedly embrace the foundational claims of the restoration, would the radical orthodox make room for them?
I think they would. But that’s not really the issue – the issue is that the traditionalists and to a lesser extent the progressives are the ones who seem more unwilling to make room. Those of us here see it all the time. I think the writers of the document were making the point that one can question and still “follow the prophet” (in other words, asking questions and examining facts does not make one a heretic). Based on what I know of some of the signatories and their writings I think they full well understand that there are many who can’t fully embrace every word from the prophet’s mouth as doctrine. I think the repeated references to following the prophets is really more of a CYA.
I am certainly willing to give this Radical Orthodoxy a chance. If this were to grow to become more mainstream then it might just do the church a big favor in helping to rid itself of unwanted historical baggage.
One viewpoint that might fit Radical Orthodoxy is what I like to call the “Continuing Restoration Model.” In this model God is gently coaxing us as a people to a more perfect state but also allowing us to make mistakes and detours along the way. In this way, some of what was said or done in the past can be seen as detours or “wrong roads”. In the familiar story of wrong roads, Matthew Holland wrote “Sometimes in our journey through life we can get from point A to point C only by taking a short side road to point B.” Not terribly unlike science, what is taught now is more true than what was taught then in large part because we have built upon the teachings of the past and learned from it (including things that might properly be seen as detours or wrong roads). As BRM said, “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
In this way, Church Leaders and even prophets can say or do things that might be acceptable for their time but that are significantly off course from the increased “light and knowledge” that God the Father has helped us to come into in these more latter days.
The church has partially done this with the Priesthood Ban. All the reasons put forward to justify the ban have been disavowed as the erroneous theories of well intentioned men. The ban itself has been downgraded to a “policy” of priesthood restriction. The church seems to be taking the position that the policy was commanded and then rescinded by God. Perhaps in some future day we will be able to look back at the Priesthood restriction policy as a detour or “wrong road” that God allowed us to take but was not ultimately helpful to the restoration or our quest for light and knowledge.
I also believe that it is within the realm of possibility for polygamy to eventually take this same route. Most of the doctrinal underpinnings of polygamy (or reasons put forward to justify it) are things that we no longer believe. JS taught that polygamy was the method by which his brother Hyrum could be sealed to both Hyrum’s deceased wife and his second (and living) wife at the same time. Maybe JS took that idea which was true and right and ran with it far beyond what was appropriate and helpful and God let him because God gives each of us agency, even prophets. Maybe subsequent prophets defended and institutionalized the practice out of admiration and respect for JS until we (as a people) were finally able to recognize it as a detour or wrong road and not helpful in our quest for light and knowledge.
These are some of the possibilities that I can imagine under the umbrella of Radical Orthodoxy as it has been described.
Thinking a little bit more on this. I think a much more academic and inconsequential example for the continuing restoration model would be the “Adam-God” theory/doctrine.
BY taught it and believed it to be revealed truth. In hindsight, I believe that most members might be able to agree that it was a detour or “wrong road.”
Subsequent church leaders have denounced this teaching.
This, to me, is the promise the “Radical Orthodoxy” might hold.
Roy wrote:
Thinking a little bit more on this.I think a much more academic and inconsequential example for the continuing restoration model would be the “Adam-God” theory/doctrine.
BY taught it and believed it to be revealed truth. In hindsight, I believe that most members might be able to agree that it was a detour or “wrong road.”
Subsequent church leaders have denounced this teaching.
This, to me, is the promise the “Radical Orthodoxy” might hold.
I agree with this assessment Roy. I think another example might be the stone in the hat thing. Most church members envision the “translation” as Joseph sitting the with the plates and the seer stone/urim & thummim. That’s partly because of church art and partly because of what we were actually taught. But it turns out that’s not the way it was and I think the “radical orthodox” types are what brought that to light. Other examples might be Joseph’s polygamy or Wilford Woodruff’s watch.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.