Critique of Pure Joanna: Coming to Terms With neo-Orthodoxy

[_Doctor Scratch]

I won't be discoursing with you at all in this thread, Scratch, so have your fun by yourself.

Oh, that's fine, Droopy. It doesn't seem like you have anything of substance to say anyhow. Instead of offering up a legitimate "critique" of your own, you defered to Louis "Woody" Midgley, and since then you've been caught up in some rambling debate over semantics. Why not do what you said you were going to do, and actually offer up a critique of Brooks's posting?

[_lulu]

What "term?" I'll try this one more time, and then just move on to an interlocutor who wishes to engage the subject (my criticisms of Brooks and "Reformed" Mormonism) in a philosophically substantive manner.

My definition of "Neo-Orthodox" or "Reform" Mormonism is, tentatively:

What term? "Neo-orthodoxy." I got your defintion, Droopy. But I was on to my 2nd question, not the definition, but your justification for using the term. Careful choice of terms aids precision of thought and clarity of expression.

You and Lou have picked a term that on its face means the exact of opposite of what you claim for it. Furthermore, its historic definition also directly contradicts your use.

Barth and the Niehburs used the phrase to mean looking afresh (neo) at an older accepted standard (orthodoxy). After a period of faith in humans' abilities to perfect themselves, known as the Social Gospel, those 3 theologians argued for a return to an older theology of human depravity that had once been more widely accepted. Barth and the Niehburs theological reflections came after some rather nasty wars that nixted the idea that humans could make themselves better.

White, Millet and Robinson used the term to suggest a new look (neo) at the old accepted Protestant doctrine (orthodoxy) of grace after about a century of the LDS church's emphasis on works. This was the theological beginning of a drive to have Mormons seem more like Protestants. A phase we are still in.

You and Lou are using the term to mean new (neo, so far so good) beliefs that have never been, and you argue never should be, accepted. That's not orthodoxy, that's heterodoxy. So what you and Lou are talking about is a neo heterodoxy.

While you might think that we have always been at war with Eastasia, there is no point in having your terminology at war with your ideas.

But I suppose this is the sort of thing that is bound to happen when a political scientist and a dwarf try to do theology.

Trailerpark or not.

[_Droopy]

What term? "Neo-orthodoxy." I got your defintion, Droopy. But I was on to my 2nd question, not the definition, but your justification for using the term. Careful choice of terms aids precision of thought and clarity of expression.

You and Lou have picked a term that on its face means the exact of opposite of what you claim for it. Furthermore, its historic definition also directly contradicts your use.

Its historic manifestation in LDS doctrinal and cultural matters, and in the political/philosophical leanings of its adherents implies a definition in all fundamentals precisely like either Midgely's or my own, more expansive articulation. Its a secularizing movement to the cultural/political Left from within a sub-group of the LDS intelligentsia. It is not primarily a theological movement but a movement aimed at domesticating LDS teachings within a modern, secular liberal context. Theological changes are a requirement of that change, but not the driving force behind it.

Barth and the Niehburs used the phrase to mean looking afresh (neo) at an older accepted standard (orthodoxy). After a period of faith in humans' abilities to perfect themselves, known as the Social Gospel, those 3 theologians argued for a return to an older theology of human depravity that had once been more widely accepted. Barth and the Niehburs theological reflections came after some rather nasty wars that nixted the idea that humans could make themselves better.

Interesting, but irrelevant to Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy as traditionally manifested as a psychological, personological phenomenon and as a set of philosophical/doctrinal/ideological preferences vis-a-vis the gospel as taught and understood in an "orthodox" manner in the Church.

White, Millet and Robinson used the term to suggest a new look (neo) at the old accepted Protestant doctrine (orthodoxy) of grace after about a century of the LDS church's emphasis on works. This was the theological beginning of a drive to have Mormons seem more like Protestants. A phase we are still in.

Since the drive to have "Mormons look more like Protestants" is a myth, except in the sense that liberal Neo-Orthodox have been driving to have the Church look more like the liberal, secularized mainstream Protestant denominations, there's really not much to see here, and not much in the way of engagement with the very secularizing, cultural leftification of LDS teaching and culture represented by the Neo-Orthodox, "New Order" or "Reform" Mormon movement, such as it is.

You and Lou are using the term to mean new (neo, so far so good) beliefs that have never been, and you argue never should be, accepted. That's not orthodoxy, that's heterodoxy. So what you and Lou are talking about is a neo heterodoxy.

No, we're talking about a heterodoxy that its adherents wish to see become the new orthodoxy, displacing the present orthodoxy (established LDS doctrine). Brook's "Reform" Mormonism, once Mormonism is, indeed, "reformed," would then be "Neo-Orthodox," or a new orthodoxy.

While you might think that we have always been at war with Eastasia, there is no point in having your terminology at war with your ideas.

You're problem is you are trying to corral me into a semantic box canyon based on some rather obscure intellectual antecedents that are not themselves relevant to the definition I'm using - which is my own and owes nothing to Barth or anyone else outside the LDS tradition - as a designation of a movement within the LDS intelligentsia to subvert and modify traditional Church teachings for the purpose of undertaking a snycretic merger of the Church with contemporary secular culture.

But I suppose this is the sort of thing that is bound to happen when a political scientist and a dwarf try to do theology.

You're not nearly - nearly - as smart as you think you are, my dear (as your tertiary foray into Barth and essentially irrelevant historical academic nitpicking having little to do with my own definition, which is derived from observation and experience with Neo-Orthodox beliefs, values, and asserted positions on various issues as they have been articulated by sundry intellectuals within that movement, indicates)

I'm not interested in discussing Karl Barth. I'm interested in discussing Joanna Brooks and Neo-Orthodoxy in that context.

Take your snark somewhere else and please don't derail the thread any further.

[_lulu]

Droopy,

I always like it when another man refers to me as “my dear," especially on the intertubes. Makes me think my sizzling male sexuality can even penetrate cycberspace.

Your calling Barth and the Niebhurs’ major idea "obscure" says more about your intellectual foundations than I ever could.

You and Lou having used the term “neo-orthodox” hardly makes it the accepted term in LDS discourse. Kendall White having already used the term in his published work Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: a Crisis Theology, Signature Books, 1987, with a different meaning. I’d say a monograph versus you and Lou’s use of it in a couple of obscure places means that White’s use of the term is the accepted one. White even takes the time to justify his use of term.

Despite your spirited defense of you and Lou’s ill chosen term, do you really want to risk leaving the impression that Joanna’s position has already become orthodox and that you and Lou are now heterodox? If not, why grace Joanna’s minority position with the label “orthodox” when you admit that currently it is not and are working to make sure it never becomes so?

“Trying to corral” you “into a semantic box canyon?” Pres. Hinckley tried so hard to defeat Mormon paranoia. And here you are returning to it, his remains hardly cold in his grave. Not to mention it’s rather unbecoming.

I was going to suggest “Mormonism with a human face” but that’s already been taken too. The term you need is “the secular accommodation heresy.” You could even call it “the Mormon secular accommodation heresy.” But I’ll confess I lose track of when it’s OK to say “Mormon.”

You can lead a horse to water . . .

[_Droopy]

I always like it when another man refers to me as “my dear," especially on the intertubes. Makes me think my sizzling male sexuality can even penetrate cycberspace.

Once you get your head out of the cesspool that sits, placid and stagnant, in the center of the Trailerpark, you should consider taking yourself down to one of the other rooms and mixing it up there with the various denizens.

Your calling Barth and the Niebhurs’ major idea "obscure" says more about your intellectual foundations than I ever could.

You will notice that I did't call their idea obscure. (although for most LDS (and people in general) it most certainly is) I said that you were using semantic quibbles originating in "obscure intellectual antecedents that are not themselves relevant to the definition I'm using," which is precisely the case. Barth and Neibhur's wrestling with the issue, in a mainline Protestant context in another generation, has little relevance to contemporary LDS "Neo-Orthodoxy." Midgley's understanding of the general leanings of the mindset are correct. Barth's much more narrow designation as "neo-orthodox" because of his rejection of fundamentalist literalism and his problems with Hegelian idealism does not appear to me to have much to do with the perspectives of someone like Joanna Brooks or other liberal/leftist Mormons seeking a diffusion of contemporary secular notions into Church teaching and culture. Indeed, it appears that Barth, within the social and theological context of his time, was doing much the opposite of what people like Brooks are attempting to do in a contemporary context.

You and Lou having used the term “neo-orthodox” hardly makes it the accepted term in LDS discourse.

Which again, is irrelevant, unless you are attempting to funnel the discussion into your own narrow canyon where you think you can control the terms of the debate. Not so easy.

Kendall White having already used the term in his published work Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: a Crisis Theology, Signature Books, 1987, with a different meaning. I’d say a monograph versus you and Lou’s use of it in a couple of obscure places means that White’s use of the term is the accepted one.

My only interest here is discussing my own definition and its relationship to contemporary trends in LDS Church/secular snycretism, not White's views, which do not appear to be relevant to my own. Indeed, for White, Neo-Orthodoxy appears to be precisely the opposite of the understanding I have attached to it - an attempt to recapture the "traditional" teachings of the Book of Mormon he claims certain LDS "theologians" modified in an attempt at compromise with the secular liberal world - exactly what people like Brooks and others of similar views are doing.

For White, Neo-Orthodoxy is, as Midgley points out, "politically conservative, authoritarian, anti-intellectual, and out of harmony with the latest fashions found in the secular culture."

The manner in which I am using the term (and White does not own this term) is the "latest fashions found in the secular culture."

Precisely.

Despite your spirited defense of you and Lou’s ill chosen term, are you really saying that Joanna’s position has already become orthodox and that you and Lou are now heterodox?

Joanna Brooks and the sub-cultural element of elite LDS intellectuals that is the subject of this thread are the one's who come to be known (and dubbed themselves) "New Order," "Reform," and "Neo-Orthodox" as contrasted with the established teachings of the Church as understood to be revealed through living prophets and the scriptures. Neo-Orthodoxy, by definition, is a new orthodoxy existing alongside and competing with the older "orthodoxy" for legitimacy as "Mormonism."

If not, why grace Joanna’s minority position with the label “orthodox” when you admit that currently it is not and are working to make sure it never becomes so?

But it wants very much to become so, and semantic quibbling to avoid the larger issues makes little difference as to its intent and purpose, which is to insert itself into the larger LDS culture and tradition as a coextensive orthodoxy of resistance to a number of traditional teachings, particularly on social and political issues.

“Trying to corral” you “into a semantic box canyon?” Pres. Hinckley tried so hard to defeat Mormon paranoia. And here you are returning to it, his remains hardly cold in his grave. Not to mention it’s rather unbecoming.

Please stop egging on a personal dust-up and engage in serious, critical argumentation or leave the thread.

I was going to suggest “Mormonism with a human face” but that’s already been taken too. The term you need is “the secular accommodation heresy.” You could even call it “the Mormon secular accommodation heresy.” But I’ll confess I lose track of when it’s OK to say “Mormon.”

The "Mormon secular accommodation heresy?" Why the massively difficult and unwieldy construction when Neo-Orthodoxy will do just fine as a descriptive term?

I'll even just go with the old Cultural Mormon as a stop-gap (i.e., secularist liberal Mormon).

You can lead a horse to water . . .

Its also very difficult to lead a snark to a serious discussion.

[_lulu]

I'll even just go with the old Cultural Mormon as a stop-gap (i.e., secularist liberal Mormon).

Since your main issue is secularism, out of the choices you present, I'd say that "secularist liberal Mormon" is the best choice.

--From the the Trailerpark cesspool.

[_Droopy]

I'll even just go with the old Cultural Mormon as a stop-gap (i.e., secularist liberal Mormon).

Since your main issue is secularism, out of the choices you present, I'd say that "secularist liberal Mormon" is the best choice.

--From the the Trailerpark cesspool.

As I pointed out above:

For White, Neo-Orthodoxy is, as Midgley points out, "politically conservative, authoritarian, anti-intellectual, and out of harmony with the latest fashions found in the secular culture."

The manner in which I am using the term (and White does not own this term) is the "latest fashions found in the secular culture."

Precisely.

[_lulu]

No one owns the term "ultramontanist" either. But if you were to apply it to Joanna, it would be confusing.

Give serious consideration to going with "secularist liberal Mormon." It has the beauty of actually saying what you actually mean.

-- From the Great and Spacious Cesspool in the Great and Spacious Trailerpark

[_Sethbag]

I think Brooks was right on in the quote from the OP. Only, I think the church is already being thrust into the position where it needed to be ready to come clean in a responsible and orderly way with its history, but wasn't.

In other words, they're caught with their pants down, and I can see no sign that they realize this and are making preparations to catch up and address the issue meaningfully. As a good example of this, the PR department's response to Prof. Bott. The church not only failed to respond with a reasonable approach to its history, but the response they gave is transparently dishonest and exactly the sort of thing that Joanna Brooks has been railing against the whole time.

It's sometimes possible, in some contexts, to stonewall. The church, however, is not in one of those contexts anymore. The information is just too readily available. Stonewalling, obfuscating, or even disavowing through assertion that statements of past First Presidencies, teachings of past Prophets, previous lesson manuals, and other such things were and remain "non-doctrinal", will just make the current church leadership look like the chickenshits they are.